Top Supreme Court Advocates Charge How Much Per Hour?

Appearing before the high court involves high billing rates -- but that doesn't make those rates unreasonable.

In his recent musings on Quinn Emanuel partner Susan Estrich’s brief in opposition to law school, my colleague Elie Mystal wrote, “[I]f you are a lawyer, your income is pretty much restricted to how many hours you can work in a day. That’s no way to live.” That’s not completely true — it’s why Biglaw firms have leverage — but it is closer to the truth for some firms and some practice areas than others.

Take either boutiques or Biglaw departments that specialize in Supreme Court and appellate litigation. They handle cases that tend to be leanly staffed, so they can’t throw a dozen bodies on a matter and profit off of each one. There’s some truth to the conventional wisdom that appellate and Supreme Court work is great for prestige, for impressing clients and recruits, but not necessarily for the bottom line.

But SCOTUS-focused firms are still doing just fine, thanks to super-high billing rates for their very sophisticated work — as well as new approaches to getting the work done that can increase efficency. From an interesting article by Tony Mauro:

Recent filings in an attorney fee request in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lift the veil on the four-figure hourly rates charged by top advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thomas Goldstein of Washington’s Goldstein & Russell, who argued and won five high court cases last term, is seeking nearly $306,000 in fees from Los Angeles after winning City of Los Angeles v. Patel, a key Fourth Amendment case, in June….

The $305,887.50 amount is based in part on Goldstein’s $1,100 hourly fee, plus $750 for partner Kevin Russell and $600 for partner Tejinder Singh. Goldstein said in an affidavit that the fee request is based on “reasonable hourly rates.”

Laypersons might express shock at $1,100 an hour, but given the going rate for Supreme Court work, as well as Tom Goldstein’s track record and experience, his rate is eminently reasonable. You can’t get a better deal elsewhere:

For the sake of comparison in evaluating his hourly fee, Goldstein, a former partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, pointed to rates charged by other veteran Supreme Court advocates: $1,350 per hour for Paul Clement of Bancroft, $1,800 for Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and $1,020 per hour for his adversary in the Patel case, E. Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

And Goldstein’s filing notes that Rosenkranz’s rate today is probably higher because the $1,020 figure came from a 2013 fee request.

Sponsored

Here’s the part about new approaches that can reduce legal fees (whether paid by the client or by an adversary pursuant to a fee-shifting statute):

Goldstein billed only 104 hours, he said in the affidavit, because “we consciously endeavored to minimize the expense generated by our firm by assigning tasks to the most affordable attorney capable of performing them.” He said he also kept costs down by “leveraging heavily the efforts of our student team.”

Seven students from the Harvard Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic spent more than 1,200 hours working on the case, Goldstein said. The students, he said, provided “invaluable research and drafting support.”

Harvard, through the Patels’ lawyers, seeks nearly $150,000 in fees for the students’ work, according to a declaration filed Friday night in the Ninth Circuit. “All fees recovered for the students’ work will be remitted to the law school and used to support its clinical programs,” Goldstein wrote in the declaration.

This seems like a win-win-win. The clients get excellent but (relatively) affordable legal services, Goldstein and his firm get to handle more matters, and Harvard law students get amazing experience on real live Supreme Court cases — and can then “pay it forward” by securing fee awards that go back into the HLS clinical program.

Could this model spread to other areas of practice and other law schools? It’s definitely a development worth monitoring. Given the challenges facing both legal education and the legal profession, innovation along these lines is most welcome.

P.S. Speaking of SCOTUS, I have almost enough new hires to report for a fresh edition of Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch. If you’re aware of a hire that wasn’t included in our last round-up, please email us (subject line: “SCOTUS Clerk Hiring”). We keep our sources confidential, of course. Thanks.

Sponsored

Hourly Rates for Top Supreme Court Advocates Revealed in Fee Filing [National Law Journal]

Earlier: Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Who Is NOT Retiring From SCOTUS?
Quinn Emanuel Partner Warns: ‘Don’t Go To Law School’