Incisive Media's Law.com
  • Law.com Network
  • Legal Web
Register for Law.com Newswire
Newsletters
RSS

Law.com Home > Fee Fight Yields $25,000 Sanction for Plaintiffs Lawyer

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Fee Fight Yields $25,000 Sanction for Plaintiffs Lawyer

Dan Levine

The Recorder

March 24, 2009

  • deliciousdel.icio.us
  • digg Digg
  • redditReddit
  • facebookFacebook
  • googleGoogle Bookmarks
  • newsvineNewsvine
  • linkedinLinkedIn
  • mixxMixx
  • stumbleuponStumbleupon
  • twitterTwitter
  • Print
  • Share
  • Email
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Write to the Editor

A federal judge turned down a request for more than $2 million in fees and sanctioned a San Francisco plaintiffs lawyer $25,000 for submitting false fee applications in civil rights litigation against FedEx.

Judge Susan Illston also forbade attorney Waukeen McCoy from filing any more FedEx-related fee petitions in the future. McCoy forfeited that right because of his bad faith, Illston ruled Thursday.

"His acts of misconduct with regard to the fee petitions are among the most egregious that this court has seen in almost 14 years on the bench," Illston wrote.

McCoy quickly sought redress Friday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I am truly disappointed with the court's ruling," he told The Recorder. "However, as a civil rights attorney fighting many billion-dollar corporations and powerful conglomerates, attacks on my character are to be expected."

The fee fight commenced after McCoy won jury verdicts against FedEx for workplace discrimination. Illston appointed a special master, Edward Swanson of Swanson McNamara & Haller, to deal with the fees, and FedEx accused McCoy of fabricating many of his hourly estimates.

McCoy got into deeper trouble with the special master, and now Illston, after he failed to produce contemporaneous time records he had been ordered to turn over. In addition, Illston found that the vast majority of McCoy's petitions were not actually based on such time records, contrary to what McCoy had repeatedly represented in sworn declarations.

"Mr. McCoy attempted to avoid rigorous scrutiny of his reported hours," Illston wrote, "by misleading the court and defendant into believing that the fee petitions were based on contemporaneous time records, which are inherently more reliable."

In response, the attorney stressed his success for the plaintiffs, which he said Illston did not question.

"I will not let this ruling, which is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law, deter me from fighting on the behalf of those who are unable to fight for themselves," he said.



Subscribe to The Recorder

  • Print
  • Share
  • Email
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Write to the Editor

Advertisement

Top Stories From Law.com

Legal Technology

  • LegalTech New York: That's a Wrap

Corporate Counsel

  • This Boot's for You: Former Amkor Technology General Counsel Disbarred

Small Firm Business

  • Wealth Management Group Leaving Wilson for Regional Firm

Advertisement

lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS >>

POST A JOB >>

Advertisement

About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Reprints  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions
Close [ X ]