Attorney Newshubb
Advertisement
  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us
No Result
View All Result
Attorney Newshubb
No Result
View All Result
Home Law News

Judge’s failure to conduct ‘lodestar cross-check’ dooms Quinn Emanuel’s $185M fee award

admin by admin
February 10, 2023
in Law News


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Judge’s failure to conduct ‘lodestar cross-check’…

Law Firms

Judge’s failure to conduct ‘lodestar cross-check’ dooms Quinn Emanuel’s $185M fee award

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 1, 2023, 10:53 am CST

Image from Shutterstock.

A trial judge should not have awarded $185 million in fees to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan without conducting a “lodestar cross-check” that considers hours worked and billing rates, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Tuesday.

Quinn Emanuel received the fee award in its representation of two classes of health plan insurers in litigation under the Affordable Care Act. The insurers said the federal government did not abide by its promise to pay them for losses incurred for the first three years of participation in the law’s insurance marketplace. The litigation settled for $3.7 billion, and the $185 million represented 5% of the award.

Law.com, Bloomberg Law, Reuters and Law360 have coverage.

Quinn Emanuel lawyers had worked nearly 10,000 hours on the case with a blended hourly rate of $1,033. Support staff had worked more than 400 hours at an average hourly rate of $325. If only attorney time was considered, the fee awarded comes to about $18,500 per hour, according to prior coverage of the case.

“Quinn Emanuel’s numbers for hours and rates, even if accepted, would produce a lodestar of approximately $10
million, and Quinn Emanuel’s $185 million proposal is huge compared to that figure,” the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 31 opinion by Judge Richard G. Taranto.

The Federal Circuit noted that Quinn Emanuel had sent a notice to potential class members that promised a lodestar cross-check.

“Assurances about the future course of the litigation, when stated in a court-approved class notice like the ones here, must generally be respected,” Taranto wrote.

The notice also said the law firm would seek no more than 5% of an award or settlement.

The trial judge had concluded that, even if a lodestar cross-check was performed, a multiplier of 18 to 19 would “not be outside the realm of reasonableness.” But that contradicts the approach taken by a number of courts that have found multipliers of one to four to be reasonable, the Federal Circuit said.

“A multiplier of 18 or 19 is far outside the evident relevant norm and so would require exceptional justification,” the Federal Circuit said. The trial judge cited three cases involving multipliers of similar magnitude, but they offer “particularly weak support” for the multiplier used in Quinn Emanuel’s case, according to Taranto.

“We must vacate the award of fees and remand for reconsideration,” Taranto wrote. “That reconsideration must include a lodestar cross-check in accordance with this opinion, including an assessment of whether there is
sufficient justification for an award with an implicit multiplier outside the mainstream of relevant multipliers.”

Quinn Emanuel commented in a statement to publications that covered the decision.

“We are proud of our work in this case and the unprecedented $3.7 billion award we obtained for our clients,” the statement said. “We are reviewing all options for next steps in response to the Federal Circuit decision and look forward to defending our entitlement to attorneys’ fees through further proceedings.”

Law360 reported that December oral arguments in the case were “heated,” with one judge accusing a Quinn Emanuel lawyer of being “aggressive” and not “respectful.”

“I was trying to sit here and figure out to myself why you’re being so aggressive, pointing your finger at us and sort of yelling at the court, and then I realized: It’s your money,” Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore said while laughing.

The cases are Health Republic Insurance Co. v. United States and Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. United States.





Source link

Tags: ABA JournalACA Health Care ReformCareer & PracticeFederal Circuit CourtFederal GovernmentGovernmentHealth LawlawLaw FirmsLawyer Paylegal newsPractice ManagementTrials & LitigationVerdicts & Settlements
Previous Post

When can state governments sue the United States?

Next Post

How Appealing Weekly Roundup – Above the LawAbove the Law

Next Post

How Appealing Weekly Roundup - Above the LawAbove the Law

Recommended

Expect another wave of significant rulings as the Supreme Court returns

January 16, 2023

Voters ban slavery as a form of punishment in 4 states; what is the impact?

November 16, 2022

Don't miss it

Attorney News

AI for Lawyers | Q&A With AI Marketing Institute CEO Paul Roetzer

March 20, 2023
Attorney News

Defendant’s ‘Repeated Confessions,’ Corroborative Evidence Leads Appellate Court to Reinstate Jury OVI Verdict

March 20, 2023
Attorney News

Hopkins & Carley Welcomes Mark Boennighausen and Dinah Ortiz

March 20, 2023
Law News

Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case

March 20, 2023
Law News

How SAMHSA Is Tackling the Mental Health Workforce Shortage

March 20, 2023
Attorney News

Bench Report: Judges Are Removing Their Private Info From the Web + Why This Judge Is Writing Pro Se Summaries

March 19, 2023

© 2022 Attorneys News Hubb All rights reserved.

Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement unless specified. By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Navigate Site

  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us

Newsletter Sign Up

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us

© 2022 Attorneys News Hubb All rights reserved.