X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
LOS ANGELES � Plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in the recent antitrust settlement involving the nation’s largest bar-review courses, BAR/BRI, are expected to receive more than $12 million in attorney fees � but they might have to share. Eliot Disner, the lawyer who initiated the case but was fired from McGuireWoods after filing briefs on behalf of class members who objected to the $49 million settlement, is expected to receive a part of the $12 million. Lawyers representing other objecting class members have requested their own slice of attorney fees. Many of those same lawyers have filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this month to overturn the settlement. A hearing on the additional attorney fees is set for Nov. 5. The case, filed in 2005, originally sought an estimated $1,000 in overcharges that each class member paid for a bar-review course. Given antitrust damages that could triple that amount, and a class of nearly 300,000, the claims totaled a potential $900 million in damages. The class alleged that West Publishing Corp., which owns BAR/BRI, and Kaplan Inc., which sells preparatory courses for the Law School Aptitude Test (LSAT), conspired to monopolize the BAR/BRI market. Under the settlement, each class member would receive about $125. McGuireWoods lawyers were awarded attorney fees based on a lodestar calculation, with a maximum amount estimated at $12.25 million, according to court papers. Disner, now at Disner Law Corp. in Los Angeles, is expected to receive about one-third of that amount, said Steve Helfand of Helfand Law Offices in San Francisco. Helfand and John W. Davis, at the Law Office of John W. Davis in San Diego, are seeking $52,360 in attorney fees for their work in representing eight objectors. Disner did not return calls. Sidney Kanazawa, of the Los Angeles office of Richmond, Va.-based McGuireWoods, who has been handling the case, referred calls to William Allcott of the Richmond office. Allcott declined to comment on Disner’s fees. He directed questions about objector attorney fees to the firm’s court filings. In those papers, McGuireWoods disagreed that the objector attorneys should receive a share of the fees.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

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

 
 

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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.