{"id":10305,"date":"2008-11-21T11:07:15","date_gmt":"2008-11-21T16:07:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/?p=10305"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:15","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:15","slug":"spotlight-on-greedy-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2008\/11\/21\/spotlight-on-greedy-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"spotlight on greedy lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a> \u201cAs recently as 1963, <\/span>Everett Hughes<\/span><\/a> wrote that the central feature of professionalism<\/span> was a doctrine of credat emptor<\/em>\u2014\u201dlet the buyer trust\u201d\u2014rather than the commercial<\/span> maxim of caveat emptor<\/em>\u2014\u201dlet the buyer beware.\u201d Society counts on the law, and on<\/span> lawyers as its servants, to spread such feelings of trust through the community. Instead,<\/span> too often, we help weaken them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

– from Living the Law, Chapt 1. of Sol Linowitz\u2019s The Betrayed Profession<\/a><\/em><\/span> (<\/span><\/span>1994), <\/span>reprinted here<\/a> (DCBA Brief<\/em>, June 1999) <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong>T<\/strong><\/em>hank goodness for especially greedy lawyers in high-profile lawsuits.\u00a0 Judges reviewing their bloated bills occasionally make it into the industry press and give us the opportunity to remind lawyers that we really do have a ban on unreasonable fees and expense charges<\/a> — we can’t agree<\/em> on them, charge<\/em> then, or collect<\/em> them. \u00a0 We also get to remind clients that “buyer be wary” is still a good idea in the 21st Century, no matter how saintly their lawyers may claim to be.\u00a0 Here are a few recent matters that deserve the spotlight:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Coughlin Stoia follows Coke’s Lead<\/em><\/strong>: You’d think a law firm whose most famous partner had recently been imprisoned for shady practices that obstructed justice, would keep a modest posture when asking for fees in a major class action suit — especially in a case that accused the defendant of artificially inflating numbers to increase share prices.\u00a0 Instead, as class counsel in Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. The Coca-Cola Co.<\/em>, No. 1:00-cv-2838 (N.D. Ga.), the Coughlin Stoia law firm sought fees valued at 26.04 percent of the $137.5 million settlement with Coca-Cola over stockholder fraud\u00a0 — about $35,805,000 — as well as more than $7 million in expenses and interest.\u00a0\u00a0 Their request led U.S. District Court Judge Willis B. Hunt to worry that the requested fees amount to “a windfall rather than just compensation for class counsel’s hard work and risk.” See “Class Lawyers Against Coke Get More Than $31.5 Million:<\/a> Judge cuts request from nearly $43 million” (Law.com\/Fulton County Daily Report<\/em>, November 21, 2008); and see Law and More<\/a><\/em> (Nov. 21, 2008)<\/p>\n

Judge Hunt, as reported at Law.com, “ultimately reduced percentage fees requested by counsel for the shareholders from 26.04 percent to 21 percent. He also trimmed more than $4 million from the lawyers’ submitted expenses.”\u00a0 Here are some of the cuts Judge Hunt decided he needed to make:<\/p>\n