Attorney Fees

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Merle L. Royce v. Amari Company, Inc., et al.,

Case No.: 18-2850; 18-2851; 18-3725; 19-1054

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Attorney Fees

This dispute over attorney’s fees has a long, tortured history. Not because it is unduly complex or involves novel legal issues, but because one of the attorneys— Michael R. Needle—protracted it every step of the way. He routinely and unapologetically tested the district court’s patience, disregarded court orders, and caused unnecessary delays. As a result, the district court sanctioned Needle multiple times for “obstructionist and vexatious” tactics.

The fee dispute arose only because Needle steadfastly took an objectively frivolous position that he and his co-counsel, Merle L. Royce, were entitled to the lion’s share—almost sixty percent—of their clients’ settlement in an underlying suit as attorney’s fees. Even Royce rejected Needle’s position because the plain language of the contingent fee agreement provided that attorney’s fees shall be one-third of the settlement. The district court found the same, and then decided a sub-dispute over the division of the aggregate attorney’s fee between Royce and Needle under a separate co-counsel agreement. The court awarded Needle sixty percent and Royce forty percent of the aggregate attorney’s fee.

Needle appeals both decisions relating to the attorney’s fee, the sanctions assessed against him, and a host of other perceived errors. We affirm the judgment in all respects because the district court’s rulings were correct, the sanctions were appropriate, and Needle’s other arguments are baseless.

Affirmed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.