"The fact that it's hard to find counsel and the fact that you are doing it by contingency is not going to be sufficient anymore to justify a multiplier," said Ed Mullins, a partner at Reed Smith.
March 03, 2022 at 02:58 PM
3 minute read
A Third District Court of Appeal ruling is a cautionary tale for lawyers seeking a contingency-fee multiplier when asking the presiding judge for attorney fees.
And Ed Mullins, a partner at Reed Smith in Miami who is not involved in this matter, said the ruling might affect how lawyers request attorney fees in the future because they will have to think of alternative grounds to justify a multiplier.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Celebrate outstanding achievement in law firms, chambers, in-house legal departments and alternative business structures.
Health Law Associate CT Shipman is seeking an associate to join our national longstanding health law practice. Candidates must have t...
Shipman & Goodwin LLP is seeking two associates to expand our national commercial real estate lending practice. Candidates should have ...
Epstein Becker & Green is seeking an associate to joins its Commercial Litigation practice in our Columbus or Cincinnati offices. Ca...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
(l-r) Third District Court of Appeal Chief Judge Ivan F. Fernandez, and judges Edwin A. Scales and Monica Gordo. (Photos: ALM/Courtesy)
