Legal Fee Voyeurism: Burt Neuborne, Five Million Dollar Man
Recently we asked you for juicy gossip about gigantic legal fees. We didn't expect to receive a response so quickly. From the WSJ Law Blog:
NYU Law School professor Burt Neuborne worked for nearly eight years to help Holocaust survivors win a $1.25 billion settlement from Swiss banks accused of helping the Nazis steal Jewish property. He then submitted a bill for $4,760,000. The rest, as they say, is controversy.New York magazine has a feature on the fee flap. A group of Holocaust survivors are furious with Neuborne for charging so much money for his services. Many say they thought Neuborne had taken the case pro bono and that he had said so many times. The executive director of the World Jewish Congress calls the bill a “moral disgrace.” Neuborne already made $4.4 million in a similar suit against German industry.
This got us thinking about other law professors who handle litigation or serve as consultants on the side -- and get paid handsomely for it. A few examples off the top of our head: Laurence Tribe, of Harvard Law School (litigation, esp. appellate litigation); Alan Dershowitz, also of HLS (helping to get rich people out of deep doo-doo); George Priest, of Yale Law School (consulting, expert witness service); Dean Dan Fischel, of the University of Chicago (law and economics consulting).
In the comments to this post -- or by email if you prefer -- please share with us any dirt on this subject. The more specific the information -- dollar figures if you know them (or can guess) -- the better. Thanks!
The Neuborne Fee Flap Takes Center Stage [WSJ Law Blog]
Getting His Due: NYU Law Professor Burt Neuborne Was Hailed as a Hero. Then He Submitted His Bill [New York Magazine]
Earlier: Legal Fee Voyeurism: Seeking Submissions
(7) Comments
Rumor has it that Priest made a few hundred thousand -- maybe $300K-$400K? -- from his work for various tobacco companies.
The Neuborne issue is stale. There is an earlier WSJ law blog post that contains a much better analysis of the situation. What is the matter with ATL? Of late, this cite has sucked eggs.
Isn't the Dersh now working on the Jeffrey Epstein case? He's probably getting paid very well for wading into that cesspool.
We apologize for being slow on the draw lately. As you know, we've been on the road. While travel is great fun, it disrupts our normal blogging routine -- and makes it tougher for us to keep up with everything.
For the record, though, we make no claim to super-timeliness. It takes extra time to add "value" (however dubious). Nor do we purport to run a news aggregation site. If you want the latest in legal news, a la the Drudge Report, we recommend How Appealing and the WSJ Law Blog (both of which we rely upon heavily).
The WSJ Law Blog post you mention, which itself relies on an earlier New York magazine article, is already linked to in this post.
In Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945 (1st Cir 1984) the 1st Cir rejected the $275/hour fee request for Prof. Tribe after he successfully overturned, on Est. Cl. grounds, a state law giving a church a veto over the issuance of a liquor license. According to an online currency calculator, that's just over $500 in 2005 dollars. I think $500/hour for Prof. Tribe would be considered a steal today!
We had a good discussion over at Prawfs about the Neuborne litigation. Check out:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/07/nyt_v_burt_neub.html
professors out here routinely consult as experts on cases for between $500 and $700 per hour.