What is Reasonable Reimbursement?

In a recent decision, California state court Judge Brett Klein ordered attorneys fees be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel in the form of gift cards for defendant’s retail store. What makes this order more unusual than the form of payment? Plaintiffs’ attorney is a male, and defendant is a women’s apparel retailer. 

The class action asserted that Windsor Fashions was committing routine violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, and sought compensation for “all customers who, between November 29, 2006 and November 18, 2008, purchased merchandise from Defendant’s stores in the State of California, used a credit card to make the purchase(s), and whose address, E mail address or telephone number was requested and recorded by a Winsor Fashions employee.”

At the time of Judge Klein’s decision, preliminary approval of settlement had already been granted by Judge Susan Bryant-Deason, who was presiding over the case at the time. The preliminary approval order called for payment to the class in the form of $10 gift vouchers and $125,000 to class counsel in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

On the day of the final approval hearing, Judge Bryant-Deason was ill, and Judge Klein took the bench in her absence. Judge Klein not only went against Judge Bryant-Deason’s preliminary approval order and changed the terms of the settlement after the final approval hearing, but according to state Commission on Judicial Performance, he “engaged in a pattern of sarcasm and improper remarks toward the attorneys.”

Judges generally have discretion to determine what is and what is not considered fair and reasonable for attorneys’ fees. However, judges do not have unfettered ability to rule outside the scope of acceptable practice. The state Commission on Judicial Performance ultimately barred Judge Klein from presiding over future court cases and from receiving any state court-referred work.


 

Plaintiff's Attorneys Earn their Fees

Almost every plaintiff attorney at some point has been approached by their client and asked if they will reduce their fee from the amount stated in the retainer. The reasons for such requests cover the entire spectrum.   Clients will complain that the case settled so quickly and therefore the large fee is not justified for so little work…….the expert fees and other costs incurred are unreasonable…….the liens were not properly negotiated…….the case dragged on for so long, the large fee is not justified for making the client wait so long for their recovery. Much of the impetus comes from the supporters of tort-reform who have never met a plaintiff’s lawyer they like. Despite the irrational logic behind agreeing to such a request, almost every plaintiff attorney has agreed at some time to reduce their fee. Should plaintiff attorneys continue to do so, or is this a bad precedent to set? That is a personal decision for each attorney when the situation arises. But one thing plaintiff attorneys will not do is to ask their clients to reimburse them for the costs incurred and some portion of the attorney’s time when a case is unsuccessful. That’s what separates plaintiff attorneys from defense attorneys. 

Take a look at the top 50 law firms in the United States and tell me which one of these will represent your uncle who was exposed to toxic fumes at his workplace, or your brother that had a heart attack and died from a pharmaceutical product? The answer is none will, because they are representing the defendants and being generously compensated for their time and efforts. Plaintiff attorneys represent people that cannot afford an attorney through contingency fee arrangements which are closely monitored by the state rules of professional responsibility. 

When clients complain and the tort-reform critics jump onboard, there is no consideration given to the inherent risk undertaken by the plaintiff attorney in this type of arrangement. If the plaintiff prevails the plaintiff attorney gets paid. But sometimes (unfortunately) the plaintiff loses and nobody gets paid. Well not exactly, because the defense attorneys always get paid, win or lose. Whether it was a toxic tort, pharmaceutical, rollover, or tobacco plaintiff verdict, the defense always got paid for losing! Yet, somehow plaintiff attorneys are expected to reduce their hard earned fees when they prevail. 

There are no plaintiff firms listed among the top earners in this country, but apparently the way to break into the top 50, (top 3 actually), is to find some gullible client that will pay you almost $19 million in six months, to lose.