We would like to thank our friends at NALFA, which has an attorney blog reporting on a survey by the TyMetrix Legal Analytics and Corporate Executive Board on the average highest partner hourly rates in 12 cities, drawing on $9.5 billion worth of invoices submitted to 83 corporate clients from 2008 to 2012 […]
Settlement Came After Arbitration Panel Awarded Orrick a $23 Million Charging Lien. Recently, MGA Entertainment settled with its former counsel Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LP for claimed unpaid fees arising out of Orrick’s representation in the Bratz doll case. Earlier, an arbitration panel had awarded Orrick a $23 million charging lien (out of
$227 Million Is Fee Award to About 30 Firms. It is now official. U.S. District Judge James V. Selna (C.D. Cal.) has approved a $1.6 billion settlement in the Toyota unintended acceleration class action case, calling it “extraordinary” given the cash payments to Toya customers who sold or turned in leased vehicles between
In a July 17, 2013 post by Debra Cassens Weiss in the on-line ABA Journal, she reports on the result of some research results by Seton Hall University law professor Michael Simkovic and Rutgers University economic/business professor Frank McIntyre. The subject is the value of a law graduate degree over an attorney’s lifetime.
Due Process Was the Reason for Reversal. Marriage of Kleytman and Pechonkina, Case No. A134740 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 18, 2013) (unpublished) is a good illustration of how due process can prevail in a family law sanctions context. Here, husband was sanctioned under Family Code section 271 for $2,500 in fees
Demand in Complaint Did Not Determine Good Faith of 998 Offer. This next one involves “wild” facts but a fairly routine application of the law. In Kulkarni v. Upasani, Case No. G045914 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 19, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff husband sued several family members and acquaintances, accusing them of conspiring
Primary Right Showed Contractual Dispute Involved. In CT Glendale, LLC v. Liu, Case No. B241445 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 17, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained $37,612 in Civil Code section 1717 contractual fees in a litigation dispute interpreting which party owned cabinetry under a settlement agreement also containing a fees clause. Plaintiff won
Flaherty Appellate Sanctions Standard Applied to Public Records Act Element. The Third District has finally spoken in Crews v. Willows Unified School Dist., Case No. C066633 (3d Dist. July 17, 2013) (published) on a California Public Records Act dispute . . . at least for the time being. This is a long-running
Retainer Agreement Trumped Everything. USA v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, Case No. 07-56549 (9th Cir. July 17, 2013) (for publication) shows that fee agreements directing payment of fees to attorneys from a collective perspective can and do make a difference. In this one, a suspended California corporation had assigned collection of fees
Keeping Things In Proportion . . . Just to stress that proportionality is not necessarily the key for winning FEHA plaintiffs, see the result in Young v. Mountain Empire Unified School Dist., Case No. D061228 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2013) (unpublished). What is? Answer: probably justice, in the eyes of the
