Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
San Francisco (AP)-Lawyers who persuaded Microsoft Corp. to settle their class action accusing the company of price-fixing are asking for $258 million in legal fees, the largest amount ever in an antitrust case. The bill comes as attorney fees are being examined critically by the American Bar Association and lawmakers across the country. It amounts to about $3,000 per hour for one lawyer, more than $2,000 an hour each for 34 other attorneys and $1,000 an hour for administrative work. Microsoft agreed to the settlement-allocating $1.1 billion for California consumers-after a small San Francisco law firm sued in state court alleging that the company inflated prices by monopolizing the preinstalled software market from 1995 to 2001. But Microsoft could end up spending much less. The deal enables anyone who bought a computer in California to get vouchers worth $5 to $29 per Microsoft product, but only a small fraction of the millions eligible have applied for the money. The lead attorney in the case, Eugene Crew, planned to ask the judge on May 12 for the fees. He told the judge in legal briefs that he deserves about $3,000 for each of his 6,189.6 billable hours, “considering the enormity of this undertaking against the most powerful corporation in America.” Lawyers from 35 firms joined the suit, which was filed in 1999 under California’s unfair competition law and settled four years later. The requested fees represent about 25% of the settlement. Normally, attorneys charge clients about a third of what’s recovered, but in class actions they negotiate fees with the losing party and the judge. Crew told San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado in briefs that they deserve about five times their normal rate because of the difficulty of maneuvering through the legal system to recover money for consumers. “Extraordinary deeds warrant appropriate recompense,” Crew wrote. The lawyers spent $11.4 million while reviewing millions of pages of documents and taking dozens of depositions, and devoted “marathon days, all-nighters and the entire Thanksgiving holiday weekend” to the case in 2001, he added. Microsoft opposes the fees. “No client would pay any lawyer or paralegal at those rates, and this court should not order Microsoft to do so,” Microsoft attorney Robert Rosenfeld said. Rosenfeld said the case was simple because of the federal antitrust case against the software maker. “Although class counsel would have had difficulty proving that plaintiffs were overcharged, their ability to piggyback on prior proceedings significantly increased the likelihood of a settlement.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.