skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Images of lawyers, judges, courthouse, gavel
October 4, 2008         DOL > OALJ > Whistleblower Collection > SOX Digest   
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)
Whistleblower Digest

ATTORNEYS' FEES

[Last Updated March 17, 2007]

Table of Contents


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISIONS

ATTORNEY’S FEES; RATES BASED ON GEOGRAPHIC MARKET FOR LOCATION OF HEARING

In Hagman v. Washington Mutual Bank, Inc., 2005-SOX-73 (ALJ Dec. 19, 2006), the Complainant had retained a law firm from New York, although the case was ultimately heard in Southern California. The Complainant submitted a fee petition seeking hourly rates of $450 to $475 for the senior attorney, $300 to $325 for an associate attorney, and $75 for a paralegal. In support, counsel supplied rates for New York lawyers published in the New York Law Journal in December 2005, and the 2006 Altman Weil Survey of Law Firm Economics. The Respondent raised numerous objections. The ALJ observed that the relevant geographic market for purposes of determining the appropriate hourly rate for attorney’s fees is normally the locality of the hearing, although some specialized cases may be grounds for an exception. The ALJ, however, found no special circumstances in the instant SOX case, and found that Los Angeles was the relevant market, that based on the ALJ’s knowledge and experience with the California bar that the Complainant could have found qualified local attorneys, and that there was no evidence that the Complainant’s attorneys were “specialists” in SOX whistleblower cases. The ALJ acknowledged that the case before him involved novel and complex issues. The ALJ observed that no lawyer appearing before him had ever received more than $300 per hour in a litigated non-settlement context, and weighing all factors found the appropriate rates to be $350, $275 and $75 respectively.

ATTORNEY FEES; SETTING MARKET RATE; USE OF ALTMAN WEIL SURVEY; FACTORS WEIGHED

In Platone v. Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc., 2003-SOX-27 (ALJ July 13, 2004), the Complainant's attorney did not present any evidence on the prevailing market rate for the type of complex litigation done before the ALJ other than to state what the attorney's own fees are for such work. The ALJ, therefore, consulted the 2004 Altman Weil Survey of Law Firm Economics for guidance. Taking into account that information, the lead attorney's experience, the complexity of the issues presented, and the excellent presentation at trial, the ALJ found that the hourly rates agreed to by the Complainant were well within the market rate and eminently reasonable. The ALJ took into account counsels' agreement to represent the Complainant at reduced rates to provide her with access to the legal system, but also found that the fee petition, which showed substantial time devoted to research and preparation for depositions, did not reflect an "expert" status in this particular practice area.

ATTORNEY'S FEES; PERCENTAGE REDUCTION WHERE BLOCK BILLING DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE MEANS TO ACCESS REASONABLENESS OF TIME EXPENDED

In Platone v. Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc., 2003-SOX-27 (ALJ July 13, 2004), the ALJ reduced the total hours billed by 15% where the Complainant's attorney used block billing that did not provide an adequate basis upon which to judge the reasonableness of all the time expended.

ATTORNEY'S FEES; USE OF MORE THAN ONE ATTORNEY

In Platone v. Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc., 2003-SOX-27 (ALJ July 13, 2004), the Respondent argued that the fee petition should be disallowed where it did not indicate the distinct contribution of the Complainant's two attorneys, and where entries were allegedly duplicative and redundant. The ALJ, however, found that the petition reflected her own observations at trial -- that one attorney paid a lead role and the other a support role -- which is an efficient and cost-effective approach to litigation. The ALJ also noted that the Respondent had used two attorneys at depositions and at trial. Thus, with the exception of a few specific instances, the ALJ declined to disallow any time on the ground that the Complainant unnecessarily used the services of more than one attorney.

Back to Top Back to top

 Questions
 National Office
 District Offices



Phone Numbers