Posts Tagged: "Contingency Lawyers"

Jenner & Block’s demand in the arbitration was for more than $10.2 million in hourly fees, which amounted to more than 70% of the net recovery obtained by Parallel Networks in the Oracle case and more than 110% of the net recovery obtained by Parallel Networks in the QuinStreet case. Jenner & Block justified this extraordinary amount by claiming that it had expended more than 24,000 billable hours in the Delaware Cases during the 18 months that it had represented Parallel Networks. Accepting Jenner & Block’s claim at face value would mean that Jenner & Block attorneys were purportedly billing Parallel Networks at a rate of nearly 44 hours per day, seven days a week, 365 days per year for the entire 18 months period of the representation. This was a rather startling claim given that the Oracle case was lost at the summary judgement stage and that the QuinStreet case never progressed much beyond the discovery phase.

After losing a case on summary judgment, and at a time when Parallel Networks most needed its counsel to fight to overturn the catastrophic summary judgment ruling, Jenner & Block was instead having internal discussions on which course of action would allow Jenner & Block to recover the maximum amount, whether that was to continue or terminate the representation… After subsequently firing the client Jenner & Block interpreted the termination provisions in the representation agreement to give it the right to convert the representation agreement from a contingency fee agreement to an hourly fee agreement… Ultimately, new counsel would prevail on behalf of Parallel Networks on appeal… Jenner’s interpretation of the representation agreement seems to fly in the face of Jenner & Block’s ethical obligation to act as a fiduciary to its client, which requires Jenner & Block to place Parallel Network’s interests before its own. It is difficult to see how Jenner & Block’s interpretation of the representation agreement did anything other than place Jenner & Block’s interests ahead of its client’s interests… Adding insult to injury, the arbitration award for fees was more than the subsequently victorious law firm collected against the infringer on behalf of Parallel Networks, which makes it difficult to understand how the fee collected was not unreasonable as that term is used in ABA Model Rule 1.5, which prohibits attorneys from charging unreasonable fees.