f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

In the spirit of ethicalEsq, let’s give a tip of the hat to Hon. Loretta A. Preska, US Dist. Ct. Judge, 

SDNY, for her excellent performance cutting fees in the Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation,

03-2251. (details here, NYLaw Journal, “Judge Halves Fees Sought,” Feb. 28, 2005; see Olson)

 

  Hon. Loretta A. Preska

orig. photo and bio here

 

In slicing a request for $22 million in fees to about $12 million (from two firms with too many names to

repeat), Judge Preska helped clarify for other judges — and maybe even for plaintiffs’ lawyers — the

factors that need to be considered when counsel want to be paid a percentage of their clients’

winnings.  Here, lead counsel wanted about 7.5% of the settlement payout.  In the decision, Judge

Preska told them why they hadn’t earned that much (per NYLJ), pointing out:

• 
  
  
  

  “[I]t is not thirty times more difficult to settle a thirty million dollar case as it is to settle a one

  
  

  million dollar case,”
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  The case “fell along the low end of the continuum of risks” for the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  “Lead counsel merely drafted complaints setting out roughly chronologically the material
  

  in the public record and alleging Defendant’s knowledge and scienter.”
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  
  

  The situation “suggests that it was the Company’s desire, prompted by the SEC, to put its
  

  house in order that caused the settlement, not any action on the part of Lead Counsel” —

  
  

  and, the attorneys benefited from the existence of an SEC action based on similar facts.

  Preska joins my short list of judicial heroes willing to police unreasonable fees (which includes

NYS justice Charles E. Ramos).   I nonetheless wonder what — other than self-aggrandizement and

delusions of entitlement — would make the lawyers involved here believe they deserve to take from

their clients even the lesser amount granted of $12 million. 

“tinyredcheck”   I also wonder whether any of the thousands of Main Street p/i lawyers who

charge a standard contingency fee to the average injured client are paying any

attention.    They ignore ABA Ethics Opinion 94-389;  they ignore the lip-service

given by trial lawyer associations to the requirement that contingency fees be  

based on “risk, cost and effort-required;” and they even ignore the preaching

of Prof. Brickman and ethicalEsq.  If only we could clone Judge Preska, and 

have her reviewing contingency fee agreements across the land.  A guy can

dream.

 

into the night
we talk of human cloning
snowflakes

 

 

winter solstice

our son reads a fairy tale

to his unborn son

 

 

Still at the edge
of its shadow—
the frog

 

 

Peggy Lyles,

from To Hear the Rain (Brooks Books, 2002)