Biglaw

Federal Judge Bashes The DOJ And Calls Out Biglaw As Too Expensive In The Same Case

There's something for everyone in this case.

By  
on

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia does not seem pleased. And, I mean, it’s understandable.

You see, Arnold & Porter brought a case against the United States, pro bono, challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy barring New Yorkers from participating in the Global Entry program. In response to the suit, the Department of Justice said in court that no state that wouldn’t share motor vehicle records with the federal government, like New York, could participate. However, that wasn’t true. The DOJ later admitted the truth, and did away with the policy banning New Yorkers.

But now the time has come for Arnold & Porter to get paid for their pro bono work as part of the settlement ending the case. According to the terms of the agreement, A&P would get $206,500 based on its corporate billing rates (two partners and six associates reportedly worked on the matter)… provided the settlement gets judicial approval.

As I said at the top, Judge Leon is not a happy camper. As reported by Law.com, he calls out the DOJ’s “embarrassing conduct” and says the desire to sweep the entire matter under the rug is what motivated them to agree to A&P’s fees:

“It is not every day the Department of Justice and their clients have to confess to written and oral misrepresentations on the record in a high profile case! It would appear that Arnold & Porter simply capitalized—unfortunately at the taxpayer expense—on the government’s apparent desire to dispose of the case as quickly as possible,” Leon wrote in his order denying the fees.

“I certainly hope, and expect, that the department’s leadership will take the necessary steps in the future, especially in cases that involve embarrassing conduct of the type here, to ensure that the fees agreed to by the department, and ultimately paid by the taxpayer, are indeed fair and reasonable.”

Despite the government’s poor behavior, Judge Leon went on to say that A&P’s corporate rates were not appropriate in this case:

“The court finds that charging defendants for time billed at Arnold & Porter’s standard, corporate rates is not reasonable under the circumstances here,” Leon wrote. “Arnold & Porter is, according to its own website, a ‘world-class’ firm, handling complex regulatory, litigation, and transactional solutions for its corporate clients’ most complex challenges. In a case of this kind, where the agreed-upon fees will ultimately be paid by the taxpayer, applying Arnold & Porter’s standard corporate rates make little sense.”

Sponsored

Judge Leon noted that using the Laffey Matrix, a model fee schedule used to determine reasonable hourly rates, assuming two partners and the two highest billing associates on the case, the reasonable fees would be $82,562. That’s… a significant reduction from to $206,500 the settlement called for.

headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sponsored

Topics

, , , ,