Surely $550 or $1,000 is a bit of a steep marketing for what Ted Frank of the (anti-class-action pro-class-member non-profit) Center for Class-Action Fairness calls an “unemployed real-estate lawyer doing first-tier securities litigation document review as a temporary contract attorney,” who is probably being paid about $50 per hour, tops?
Intellectually, I understand the difference between paying a contract lawyer an hourly wage and charging a client an hourly rate for their work. But it’s never felt right to me. Contract lawyers feel more like a cost that should be simply passed through to the client.
However you feel, surely we can agree that marking up a lawyer you pay $50 an hour to $550 is egregious, right?
Read “Does Legal Fees Motion in $590M Citigroup Case Include $1K Per Hour for Low-Paid Contract Lawyers?” at the ABA Journal
Sam Glover has been writing about law practice technology, management, marketing, and other stuff on Lawyerist since 2007. He consults on appeals and motion practice in his solo practice. When he isn't blogging or lawyering, Sam drinks espresso and plays with fountain pens.
Read the comments below or add one of your own.
If you pay the reviewer more than that, he won’t have the drive to become the next Matt Ritter. If you charge the client less than that, you won’t be able to get the new 7-series BMW you want. Duh.
A journalist following up on the story tells me it is $32/hour.
CCAF is not anti-class-action. We’re pro-class-member, and have won millions of dollars for class members.
There you go again, Ted, ruining a good story with facts.
Tells you the contract lawyers are being paid $32/hour, or that the class action lawyers are requesting $32/hour?
Post updated. Sorry for mischaracterizing your stance in my hastily-written blog post.
The contract lawyers were paid $32/hour. The attorneys are asking between $660 and $1040/hour including multiplier.