By: Derek Hawkins//November 11, 2015//
Civil
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: RIPPLE, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges
Settlement Proceeds – Contingency Fee Agreement
No. 13-2434 Williams, Bax & Saltzman, P.C. v. Boley International (H.K.) Ltd
District Court refusal to provide judicial approval to finalize settlement and limitation on amount granted to firm as result of settlement was improper.
“On this analysis, the firm’s fee easily passes muster. At the initial hearing regarding the settlement, the judge acknowledged that the firm “did a terrific job for the client.” In his final order, the judge took note of “the extensive time spent by plaintiffs’ counsel in the hard-fought battle.” There is no disagreement about the complexity of the litigation, which necessitated expansive discovery and the retention of numerous expert witnesses. After all, it was this degree of time-consuming and labor-intensive preparation that drove the litigation expenses deeply (in the district court’s view, too deeply) into the Goesels’ share of the recovery. It’s ironic, then, that the “difficulty of the question[] involved”—which should work in the firm’s favor here—served as a basis for the judge to reduce the firm’s fee. Without either a quantitative or qualitative basis for objection, the firm’s bargained-for compensation cannot be called unreasonable.”
Reversed and Remanded