In a February 2012 decision concerning New York’s Lemon Law, the Queens County Supreme Court awarded attorney fees in the amount of $22,765.50, which constituted a 45% reduction of the $50,590 originally requested. The court held that such reduction was warranted due to excessiveness, padding (i.e. hours that are excessive or otherwise unnecessary) and general […] Read More...
Posted in Newsletters •
Comments Off on Queens County Supreme Court Reduced Attorney Fees by 45% Due to Excessiveness, Padding and Inefficiency
On March 28, 2014, the Georgia Supreme court disbarred an attorney for overbilling her client, misleading the court about how much she earned in fees, and fabricating inaccurate billing statements. The 4-2 decision agrees with the recommendation of a special master who conducted an investigation of the attorney’s conduct in response to a grievance a former client […] Read More...
Posted in Newsletters •
Comments Off on Inaccurate Billing Leads to Attorney Disbarment
A recent district court case in Georgia, Bird v. Sumter County School District,[1] took an interesting approach to block billing. As defined by the Court, block billing is “a practice of logging hours whereby activities are grouped together without regard to their similarity.” Because block billing makes it difficult or impossible for a court to […] Read More...
Posted in Newsletters •
Comments Off on A Unique Approach to Block Billing
A fee award in a recent case in the Eastern District of New York, Claudio v. Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District, provided examples of several common problems with attorney billing records. Though the court found that the attorney’s hourly rate of $395 was reasonable, the court significantly reduced the number of hours billed because of […] Read More...
In a set of recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed the legal test for awarding attorney fees in patent cases.[1] The current fee shifting provision of the Patent Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”[2] Until recently, to shift attorney fees to a […] Read More...
Posted in Newsletters •
Comments Off on New Test for Fee Shifting in Patent Law Suits
A fee award in a recent case in the Eastern District of New York, Claudio v. Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District, provided examples of several common problems with attorney billing records. Though the court found that the attorney’s hourly rate of $395 was reasonable, the court significantly reduced the number of hours billed because of […] Read More...
Posted in Newsletters •
Comments Off on Court Reduces Attorney Hours By 33% Notably On The Basis Of Lack Of Billing Specificity
In a Law360 article dated May 6, 2014, by Allissa Wickham, it was reported that Innovention Toys LLC was awarded an increase of approximately $260,000 in attorneys’ fees in its patent infringement case against MGA Entertainment Inc. The subject of the case is a patent held by Innovention’s for a “light reflecting board game” called […] Read More...
Posted in Newsletters •
Comments Off on MGA Pays $2 Million in Legal Fees in Board Game Patent Infringement Case
In the Legal Profession Blog article dated April 24, 2014 it was reported that the Illinois Administrator has charged a Chicago attorney with billing fraud in violation of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5: Fees and 8.4(c): Misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.[1] The attorney in question allegedly increased the legal fees billed to […] Read More...
In a March 2014 decision of an insurance coverage dispute, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,029,511.76. This constitutes a 46.5% reduction from the $1,924,107.06 amount originally requested by the Plaintiff. The Court set forth a variety of different reasons for the reduction including, inter […] Read More...
Posted in Newsletters •
Comments Off on US District Court Reduces Attorney’s Fees by $894,000
In January 2014 decision, in the case of Beauford v ActionLink, LLC, 2014 WL 183904 [ED Ark Jan. 15, 2014], the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, awarded plaintiffs’ attorneys fees in the amount of $193,473.50. In determining reasonable fees to be awarded, the court conducted a detailed analysis […] Read More...
