fees Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Judge orders Fani Willis to pay attorneys fees — yet again

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 16 Mar 2025 13:10:20 +0000

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis looks on during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March, 1, 2024, in Atlanta (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool).

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has lost yet another case and is now being ordered to once again pay attorneys fees for her office’s intentional violations of Peach State open records laws.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the final judgment in the matter ancillary to the district attorney’s failed racketeering (RICO) prosecution of President Donald Trump was a foregone conclusion.

In October 2024, the judge overseeing the matter said Willis would lose and be subject to a monetary penalty. On Friday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause formalized her ruling.

“The law doesn’t apply to you,” the judge sarcastically said during last year’s final hearing in the case — upbraiding a government lawyer.

In the case, attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents co-defendant Michael Roman in the underlying RICO prosecution, proved the district attorney’s office violated the Georgia Open Records Act by failing to quickly provide documents related to the employment and remuneration of Nathan Wade — the former special assistant district attorney forced to resign from the Trump case due to his onetime romantic relationship with Willis — and other documents related to how Willis’ office spent large sums of public funds.

Instead, the DA’s office delayed those requests for months and said the law did not apply to them — with one particular employee responsible for the stonewalling. Only when litigation was filed, and a subpoena was served, did the DA’s office comply with the law.

True sunshine filtered through the bureaucratic haze when Dexter Bond, the deputy of operations for the DA’s office, admitted under oath that he responded unfavorably to the plaintiffs based on the identity of the attorney filing the requests and concomitant lawsuit.

That behavior clearly irked the judge.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Agreed to produce’: Fani Willis tells court she will finally respond to subpoenas for documents and testimony about Trump RICO prosecution

“As noted during the hearing, Defendants — through the Open Records custodian, Dexter Bond — were openly hostile to counsel for Plaintiff, Ms. Merchant, and testified that Ms. Merchant’s requests were handled differently than other requests,” the court order reads.

Krause explains the problem, at length:

Mr. Bond indicated that he refused to communicate by telephone with Ms. Merchant, despite testifying that his usual practice is to call a requestor to get additional information when a request is unclear. While there is no requirement under the [Open Records Act] for Mr. Bond to call any a requestor about a particular request, Mr. Bond’s handling of Ms. Merchant’s requests in this manner indicates a lack of good faith. The evidence at the hearing also demonstrated that Mr. Bond failed to produce (or meaningfully inquire about) numerous non-disclosure agreements based on his unnecessarily limited interpretation of the request as pertaining only to media agreements. After Mr. Bond consulted with Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Bond understood the request to include “confidentiality” agreements and produced 22 such agreements. Later, an office-wide e-mail was sent, and numerous other agreements were identified and produced. Mr. Bond also testified he did not conduct any searches or make other meaningful search efforts in response to Plaintiff’s request for promotional and “re-branding” materials, claiming he did not know what the request sought and there “were no searches to perform.”

In the end, the judge said, Willis and her underlings “acted without substantial justification” under the relevant Georgia law.

“Defendants’ failures were intentional, not done in good faith, and were substantially groundless and vexatious,” Krause summed up.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Ultimately, for their perfidy, the DA’s office was ordered to pay Merchant $54,264 in attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

The plaintiffs also received injunctive relief by way of an order directing Willis to finally provide three types of requested documents.

The DA’s office has 30 days to comply with the court’s order to pay or find itself subject to potential additional fees and expenses.

Source link

The post Judge orders Fani Willis to pay attorneys fees — yet again appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

BLM, USDA Forest Service announce 2025 grazing fees

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:04:10 +0000

WASHINGTON – The federal grazing fee for 2025 remains $1.35 per animal unit month for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and $1.35 per head month for lands managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

An animal unit month or head month — treated as equivalent measures for fee purposes — is the use of public lands by one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month. The newly calculated grazing fee takes effect March 1, 2025. The fee will apply to nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases administered by BLM and nearly 6,250 permits administered by the Forest Service.

The formula used for calculating the grazing fee was established by Congress in the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act and has remained in use under a 1986 presidential Executive Order. Under that order, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month / head month, and any increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level.

The annually determined grazing fee is established using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per animal unit month / head month for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then calculated according to three factors: current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions.

BLM and Forest Service are committed to strong relationships with the ranching community and work closely with permittees to ensure public rangelands remain healthy, productive working landscapes. The grazing fee applies in 16 Western states on public lands administered by BLM and the Forest Service.

Permit holders and lessees may contact their local BLM or Forest Service office for additional information.

Source link

The post BLM, USDA Forest Service announce 2025 grazing fees appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

BLM seeks public input on recreation permit fees in Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 26 Oct 2024 08:49:48 +0000

EL CENTRO, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management is seeking public input on a proposal to adjust recreation permit fees at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) to continue to provide essential services, increase customer service, and enhance recreation opportunities and experiences for public land visitors.

Recreation permit fees are an important revenue source for Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area’s continued operation, management and maintenance.

“Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area is one of the busiest recreation areas in the state and these proposed fees will help the BLM continue to provide safe and enjoyable recreation opportunities and experiences for visitors,” said Matt Lohr, El Centro Field Manager. “The fee structure for ISDRA permits has not been adjusted to cover increasing operating and maintenance costs and reflect market conditions since 2013.”

The proposal considers increasing recreation permit fees for primary vehicles – the street-legal vehicles used for transportation to ISDRA. The need for the proposed fees were determined through fair market analysis, historical revenue, and operating costs. The proposed recreation permit fees would be $55 for off-site weekly permits, $70 for on-site weekly permits, and $185 for season permits, effective Oct. 1, 2025.

Revenue from recreation fees support off-highway vehicle grants for Emergency Medical Services, Search and Rescue, law enforcement; trash collection and removal; facilities maintenance of ranger stations; vault toilets; sand removal from access roads; camping pads; and other services. All recreation fees collected at sites are reinvested directly back into the local recreation program to expand and improve recreational opportunities as authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004.

The proposed El Centro Draft Recreation Site Business Plan outlining existing and proposed recreation permit fee changes and operation and maintenance costs, is available for public comment for 30 days. Submit public comments by Nov. 25, via mail to the BLM El Centro Field Office, 1661 S. 4th Street, El Centro, CA 92243 or via email at BLM_CA_web_EC@blm.gov.

The Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area is one of the most popular off-highway vehicle areas in the United States, attracting the highest concentration of visitors of any BLM recreation area nationwide with more than 1.2 million visitors each year.

Source link

The post BLM seeks public input on recreation permit fees in Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Election workers demand control over Giuliani’s Trump fees

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:11:43 +0000

Members of then President Donald Trump’s legal team, including former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, left, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, speaking, attend a news conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters, Thursday Nov. 19, 2020, in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).

Defamed election workers in Georgia are still brawling with Rudy Giuliani in court as they attempt to collect as much of their $148 million judgment as possible in property, including $2 million in “never paid” legal fees stemming from Giuliani’s ill-fated 2020 election lawyering for Donald Trump and his campaign.

Lead plaintiff Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss in August asked a federal court to order Giuliani to “turn over personal property in his possession” and to appoint them as “receivers with the power to take possession of, and sell, both real and personal property that Mr. Giuliani does not turn over,” like his New York apartment and his Florida condo.

At the time, Freeman and Moss cited Giuliani’s under oath testimony in his since dismissed bankruptcy case that he was “owed ‘about two million dollars’ by the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (the ‘Trump 2020 Campaign’) and/or the Republican National Committee for his work following the 2020 presidential election.” They demanded that the fee claim be turned over to them.

Left: Shaye Moss. Right: Ruby Freeman, during Jan. 6 Committee testimony (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).

Giuliani responded in early October that he was concerned about timing — so close to the 2024 election — and optics.

“The Court, in its discretion, should postpone a turnover of this claim until November 6, 2024, the day after Election Day,” Giuliani requested, later warning that the media would make it seem like he had turned on Trump.

“Plaintiffs will or may use this assignment for an improper, political (or, at least, collateral) purpose, creating the confusing, and inaccurate, appearance that Defendant is now somehow suing candidate Trump, thereby generating an accompanying, and unnecessary, media frenzy,” his opposition filing argued. “Plainly, the value of this claim will not depreciate between now and November 6, 2024.”

On Friday, Freeman and Moss replied that there was “no merit” to Giuliani’s concerns about timing and appearances. The plaintiffs, therefore, demanded that Giuliani’s “control over this legal claim should be severed immediately.”

“There is no merit to Defendant’s objection. The ‘appearance’ that a judgment debtor is seeking repayment of an outstanding debt for the benefit of creditors is not a meaningful reason to withhold relief under CPLR § 5225 or §5228, and Mr. Giuliani cites no authority to the contrary,” the plaintiffs said. “If anything, Mr. Giuliani’s unwillingness to appear adverse to former President Trump or his campaign further underscores that Mr. Giuliani cannot be trusted to monetize or even preserve the value of this claim for his creditors.”

Freeman and Moss added that it will be “abundantly clear” who is suing whom.

“In any litigation with respect to the Legal Fee Claim—including in the event any such litigation is commenced prior to November 6, 2024—Plaintiffs would bring such litigation in their capacity as receivers for, or as assignees of, Mr. Giuliani’s interest in the claim, and would make that status abundantly clear both in the case caption and in the body of any complaint,” the filing said. “No reasonable observer would misinterpret such a filing as a suit by Mr. Giuliani against former President Trump, the 2020 Trump Campaign, or any other party.”

The Trump legal claim aside, plaintiffs are apparently open to the idea that neither New York Yankees World Series rings nor a watch that belonged to Giuliani’s grandfather will be subject to collection.

As Law&Crime noted recently, Giuliani’s son Andrew Giuliani filed documents claiming that the rings are his and have been since 2018, when his father gifted them to him.

Freeman and Moss are asking the judge to let discovery play out and for the younger Giuliani to sit for a deposition on the rings, perhaps ahead of November, before a ruling is issued on “turnover or receivership.”

The plaintiffs are taking a similar approach with Giuliani’s grandfather’s watch.

“As a gesture of good faith, Plaintiffs are prepared to recognize that exemption with respect to Mr. Giuliani’s grandfather’s watch, if he is able to produce satisfactory evidence showing that the watch”s value does not exceed the $1,000 exemption limit,” the filing said. “If ongoing negotiations do not resolve this issue, the Court should order that the watch be taken into receivership pending Mr. Giuliani’s production of such satisfactory evidence of value.”

Could all of this largely end up being much ado about nothing? In the words of the plaintiffs, maybe [emphasis ours]:

On October 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a consent letter motion, apprising the Court that Plaintiffs and Defendant are discussing a proposal that may, if successful, moot any remaining disputes raised in Defendant’s opposition to the Motion to Enforce Judgment. Those negotiations are ongoing, and by filing their reply brief today, Plaintiffs do not intend to convey to the Court that the negotiations referred to in their prior letter-motion have concluded without success; instead, Plaintiffs have filed their reply brief in support of the Motion to Enforce Judgment consistent with the Court’s deadline of October 19, 2024. Plaintiffs will file a status report by the end of the day on October 22, 2024, updating the Court of the status of those negotiations.

Giuliani’s camp has said that the judgment enforcement action was designed to “censor and bully” him and to “harass and intimidate” from exercising his First Amendment rights.

Read the reply in support of enforcing the judgment here.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Election workers demand control over Giuliani’s Trump fees appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Public land mining claim fees and waivers due September 3: Conveniently pay online using the Mineral & Land Records System

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 08:30:53 +0000

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management reminds claimants who wish to retain mining claims on public lands through the 2025 assessment year to pay a Maintenance Fee or file a Maintenance Fee Waiver Certification (Small Miner’s Waiver) on or before Tues., Sept. 3, to prevent the mining claim from being declared forfeit and void.

Courtesy Mining Claims Packets are available online or upon request through the California State Office, Information Access Center (Public Room). The BLM will not be mailing packets, unless requested.

The Maintenance Fee for a Lode Claim, Tunnel Site, or Mill Site is $200 per claim or site. For Placer Claims only, the fees are $200 for every 20 acres or portion thereof. Claimants who filed a Small Miner’s Waiver in 2023 for the 2024 assessment year will be required to file an Affidavit of Annual Assessment Work form, including the required $15 assessment fee per claim on or before Monday, Dec. 30.

The California State Office Public Room is open to in-person visits; however, the BLM encourages submission of mining claims by mail or online.

Mail: Checks must be pre-printed showing the address, with recommended Certified Mail being the preferred method of shipment, to Bureau of Land Management-CASO, ATTN: Accounts/Mining, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1623, Sacramento, CA 95825. Payments or filings by mail must be postmarked on or before Tues, Sept. 3.
Phone: For Maintenance Fees Only: Call 916-978-4400 to pay with a credit card by telephone.
Online: Visit the BLM’s Mineral & Land Records System (MLRS) payment portal to make payment with a credit card. Note: The Small Miner’s Waiver cannot be filed on MLRS due to original signatures needed; please submit the Small Miner’s Waiver in-person or through the mail.
In-person: claimants who wish to make filings and payments via mail or in-person must make their filing to the proper BLM State Office for the state where the mining claims or sites are located. Check the website for times and telephone numbers for BLM Public Room hours.

For information on the filing deadlines, Maintenance Fees, Maintenance Fee Waiver Certifications, or Federal Land Policy and Management Act filings (Affidavit of Annual Assessment Work or Notice of Intent to Hold) please call the Information Access Center (CA Public Room) at 916-978-4400 or visit the BLM California Public Room website.

To review mining claim fees, please visit the website or the Federal Register. Please note the Federal Register notice states the fees are due on or before Sept. 1, 2024; however, that date is moved out to Sept. 3 due to the first being on a Sunday and Tuesday, Sept. 2, is a federal holiday.

Source link

The post Public land mining claim fees and waivers due September 3: Conveniently pay online using the Mineral & Land Records System appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Rudy Giuliani still on hook for massive bankruptcy fees

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:50:48 +0000

Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani arrives at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. in December 2023 (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana).

Rudy Giuliani’s quest to cut down hundreds of thousands in bankruptcy fees by nearly half has not gone on in his favor, even after he claimed to be “overbilled” and even after the judge in the case and the forensic financial advisor both reduced the amount of money owed.

A Friday filing from Global Data Risk noted that the prior ask of $324,843.75 in fees was dropping down to $300,480.47, as a consequence of the objections of the U.S. Trustee’s Office and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane’s decision.

“In response to objections that the United States Trustee raised informally, GDR agreed to voluntarily reduce its fees by $7,562.50. The Court reduced the total fees to be paid by an additional $16,800.78,” a footnote detailed.

While a reduction of $24,363.28 is better than nothing for Giuliani’s purposes, it’s a far cry from what he wanted.

More Law&Crime coverage: Rudy Giuliani’s 2020 election lawyering for Trump comes back to haunt him again as another court orders him disbarred

In August, Global Data Risk filed its fee application and demanded $324,843.75 for “1,181.25 hours of services” and $6,854.29 more in expenses racked up over the course of the bankruptcy, totaling the fee demand at that time at $331,698.04. In response, Giuliani filed documents looking to slice the professional fees he owes nearly in half, claiming that he was “overbilled” due to “duplicative time entries” and “excessive” research-related services. He asked for a reduction of $151,662.50 from the tab, a discount of roughly 46 percent.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Overbilled’ Rudy Giuliani is trying to slice his bankruptcy fees nearly in half despite judge’s comment that the money owed could have been ‘much higher’

Global Data Risk insisted in reply that Giuliani “got an incredible deal” under the circumstances and yet he was still mounting “another baseless and bad faith crusade” to avoid paying up.

Why didn’t Giuliani get the fee reduction he asked for? At a hearing last week, the judge reportedly remarked that Giuliani’s own conduct in the bankruptcy was to blame.

“There was an alarming and inappropriate lack of financial transparency by the debtor … which led to the need for this work,” Lane said, according to CNN.

In other words, had there been transparency there would have been no need for creditors — defamed Georgia 2020 election worker Shaye Moss, Dominion Voting Systems, and Noelle Dunphy — to hire Global Data Risk to investigate his finances, and there would have been no whopping fees.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Rudy Giuliani still on hook for massive bankruptcy fees appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

With attorney fees, Gibson Dunn must pay over $725K to ex-partner who had earned $60M

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:23:09 +0000

Law Firms

With attorney fees, Gibson Dunn must pay over $725K to ex-partner who had earned $60M

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 19, 2024, 9:57 am CDT

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has agreed to pay a former partner more than $140,000 in attorney fees unless the amount is overturned in an appeal of his much higher arbitration award. (Photo from Shutterstock)

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has agreed to pay a former partner more than $140,000 in attorney fees unless the amount is overturned in an appeal of his much higher arbitration award.

Former partner Mark A. Perry, who left Gibson Dunn to co-chair the appellate practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, has been awarded more than $725,000 in all: $557,371 in retirement benefits, $27,502 in interest and $140,678 in attorney fees.

Law360 and Reuters have coverage of the Sept. 13 order by Judge Kevin C. Brazile of Los Angeles, which granted attorney fees based on the parties’ stipulation.

Perry left Gibson Dunn in 2022 after spending nearly 28 years at the law firm.

The fee award follows an arbitrator’s determination that Perry was entitled to retirement payments when he stops competing with Gibson Dunn. The firm had maintained that Perry wasn’t entitled to retirement payments because he had resigned, rather than retired.

Even if Perry was retired, Gibson Dunn said, he wasn’t entitled to retirement payments under the partnership agreement because he competed with Gibson Dunn.

Brazile confirmed the arbitration award in a June decision. He ruled for the firm, however, in a motion to seal portions of the partnership agreement and other sensitive information. But Brazile said there was no basis to seal “supposed ‘private’ information about Perry,” including his career earnings.

The earnings amounted to $60 million. Perry also had a “lucrative” 401(k), Brazile said.

Gibson Dunn has filed notice of appeal, Law360 reports.

Source link

The post With attorney fees, Gibson Dunn must pay over $725K to ex-partner who had earned $60M appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Criticizing plaintiff’s ‘chutzpah,’ federal judge holds lawyer jointly responsible for over $207K in legal fees

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:42:35 +0000

Trials & Litigation

Criticizing plaintiff’s ‘chutzpah,’ federal judge holds lawyer jointly responsible for over $207K in legal fees

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 29, 2024, 2:34 pm CDT

A federal judge in Houston is holding a lawyer and his client liable for more than $207,500 in their opponent’s legal fees (Image from Shutterstock)

A federal judge in Houston is holding a lawyer and his client liable for more than $207,500 in their opponent’s legal fees, saying they filed a patent infringement lawsuit and continued to litigate it after the defendant “pointed out its obvious lack of merit.”

U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas required Houston lawyer William P. Ramey III and his client VDPP to pay the fees in their suit contending that a Volkswagen backup camera infringed VDPP’s patent, Reuters reports.

VDPP had argued that the fee award should be limited to the time spent defending “the exceptional portion of the case,” a reference to parts of a case found to be frivolous or unreasonable.

Rosenthal responded that the entire case was frivolous, and VDPP’s arguments displayed “chutzpah.”

“The entire case was exceptional, from the outset, for reasons that VDPP and its counsel knew,” wrote Rosenthal in her Aug. 13 decision. “There is no need to allocate the fees between the frivolous and nonfrivolous aspects of the case. It was all frivolous.”

VDPP sought future damages that were “clearly unrecoverable” because the patent had expired, Rosenthal wrote. The company sought past damages that were “clearly unrecoverable” because VDPP had not complied with marking requirements, she said.

And VDPP “lied about the existence of prior licensing agreements that confirmed the meritless nature of its case,” Rosenthal said.

In a prior decision, Rosenthal said settlement agreements licensing the VDPP patent did not require licensees to comply with marking requirements. VDPP had said there were no settlement agreements—only “agreements in principle,” Rosenthal said.

According to Reuters, Ramey and his law firm filed more than 100 suits this year, including at least 25 in which VDPP was the plaintiff. Federal judges have imposed fee sanctions in Ramey’s cases at least seven times in four years, according to Reuters. The sanctions total is at least $810,000, according to the wire service.

Ramey told Reuters in a statement that he and VDPP “respect all court orders. We appeal those orders we think are incorrect, as we have done in this case.”

Ramey did not immediately reply to an ABA Journal request for comment made in an email and in a message left with his firm.

Source link

The post Criticizing plaintiff’s ‘chutzpah,’ federal judge holds lawyer jointly responsible for over $207K in legal fees appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Kasowitz Benson sues former Gibson Dunn partner for nearly $500K in latest suit seeking legal fees

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:27:55 +0000

Law Firms

Kasowitz Benson sues former Gibson Dunn partner for nearly $500K in latest suit seeking legal fees

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 29, 2024, 2:34 pm CST

Kasowitz Benson Torres is seeking nearly $500,000 in legal fees from a former Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York state court. (Image from Shutterstock)

Kasowitz Benson Torres is seeking nearly $500,000 in legal fees from a former Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York state court.

The suit seeking fees from suspended lawyer Ignacio Foncillas “is the latest in a string of court actions the firm has initiated against former clients since the start of 2023 for a total of $5.2 million in legal fees,” Law.com reports.

Kasowitz Benson had helped Foncillas negotiate a “highly favorable sentencing agreement,” according to the suit allegations cited by Law.com.

Foncillas pleaded guilty in June 2018 to operating an unlicensed money transferring business between the United States and Mexico. Operating without a license allowed customers to evade anti-money-laundering safeguards, according to prosecutors. The company allegedly aided the transmission of more than $9 million between the two countries.

Foncillas was sentenced to time served, two years of supervised release, 500 hours of community service and a $7,500 fine. He also consented to entry of a $9.4 million forfeiture judgment, but the government agreed to accept more than $262,000 in satisfaction of that amount, according to a court opinion affirming his one-year suspension.

Foncillas did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment, sent to an email address listed by the New York court system. His representatives did not return Law.com’s request for comment.

Other defendants sued by Kasowitz Benson for fees include a financial adviser, a real estate developer and a marketing agency, according to Law.com. The largest amount sought was $2 million, related to Kasowitz Benson’s representation of real estate companies in connection with a mortgage foreclosure.

Law.com spoke with Michael Heller, CEO of Cozen O’Connor, about the risk of suing for unpaid fees.

“Most law firm general counsel will try to caution their law firm leaders against filing for unpaid fees because you could get a counterclaim of malpractice,” Heller said.

He declined, however, to comment specifically on the Kasowitz Benson suits.

Source link

The post Kasowitz Benson sues former Gibson Dunn partner for nearly $500K in latest suit seeking legal fees appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Lawyers seek over $288K per hour in attorney fees, payable in Tesla stock, for suit toppling Elon Musk’s compensation

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 09 Mar 2024 02:23:27 +0000

Law Firms

Lawyers seek over $288K per hour in attorney fees, payable in Tesla stock, for suit toppling Elon Musk’s compensation

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 4, 2024, 1:28 pm CST

The three law firms that successfully sued to overturn SpaceX owner and Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $55.8 billion Tesla compensation package are seeking attorney fees payable in company stock worth more than $5.6 billion. (Photo by Hannibal Hanschke via the Associated Press)

The lawyers are seeking about 11% of Tesla shares worth more than $51 billion that were freed up as a result of the litigation, according to the brief supporting the fee application. They are also seeking more than $1 million for litigation expenses.

Law360, Reuters, Fortune and the New York Post have coverage of the fee request.

The fee request amounts to more than $288,000 per hour, according to the 127th footnote in the brief.

“These implied hourly rates and lodestar multiples are admittedly unprecedented,” the brief says. “But that is a function of the gargantuan size of the tort underlying this action, and plaintiff’s counsel’s
achievement of an unprecedented, total victory in challenging that tort.”

The three firms seeking the fees are Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann; Friedman Oster & Tejtel; and Andrews & Springer.

The record for a fee award in a shareholder case was $688 million in 2008, which was awarded to lawyers who sued over the collapse of the Enron Corp., according to the news coverage.

Judge Kathaleen McCormick of Delaware’s chancery court had ruled Jan. 30 that Musk’s $56 billion pay package was unfair to shareholders, Reuters previously reported.

The name plaintiff in the case is stockholder Richard Tornetta, who was at one time the drummer in the band Dawn of Correction, according to the New York Post.

Source link

The post Lawyers seek over $288K per hour in attorney fees, payable in Tesla stock, for suit toppling Elon Musk’s compensation appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.