Court's Expert Recommends Limit on Attorney Fees for NFL Settlement Lawyers
A Harvard Law professor has issued a report recommending a cap on all contingent fee contracts for attorneys representing former players individually and rejecting arguments that parties should pay an additional set-aside toward a common benefit fund for class counsel attorneys.
December 12, 2017 at 12:28 PM
4 minute read
A Harvard professor who reviewed the attorney fee request in the $1 billion concussion litigation settlement with the NFL has recommended placing limits on potential recovery for lawyers.
Harvard Law School professor William Rubenstein issued a 47-page report Monday recommending that a presumptive 15 percent cap be set on all contingent fee contracts for attorneys representing former players individually. He also rejected arguments that parties should pay an additional 5 percent set-aside toward a common benefit fund for class counsel attorneys working to implement the settlement program.
Rubenstein was asked earlier this year by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to vet the lump-sum fee request in the case.
“It is my expert opinion that my recommendations strike a proper balance between fairly compensating the lawyers for the services that they have provided—or will provide—while ensuring that the absent class members do not pay fees that are, in total, unreasonable,” Rubenstein said.
Seeger Weiss' Chris Seeger, who is co-lead counsel for the class of NFL players in concussion litigation, said in an emailed statement, “We are reviewing the report and will respond per the schedule set by the court.”
Earlier this year, class counsel asked U.S. District Judge Anita Brody, who is handling the litigation, to approve $112.5 million for attorney fees and costs stemming from the $1 billion settlement intended to compensate about 20,000 former players suffering from concussion-related injuries. The NFL has agreed to pay the money in addition to the money for the class members.
The fee request included a 15.6 percent fee for attorneys representing claimants directly, along with the 5 percent set-aside that would be paid either from attorney fees, if the claimant has individual representation, or from the claimants' recovery, if they are not represented by an attorney.
When it came to the 15 percent cap, Rubenstein noted that some contingency fees date back to 2011—four years before the settlement was given final approval in 2015—and some agreements are also as high as 45 percent. He further noted that some players have more than one attorney, aggregate attorney fees in class actions are typically less than 15 percent, the case settled following little litigation, and many of the ex-players—most of whom are suffering from cognitive impairments—will receive “relatively small” recoveries.
“A 15 percent [initially retained plaintiff's attorney] fee cap will mean that most represented players pay about 30.6 percent of their recoveries to these two sets of lawyers, plus the IRPA's expenses,” Rubenstein said. “Given the quantity of litigation that occurred in this case and the size of the settlement, that is a sufficiently fair amount to ensure that counsel will continue to pursue these types of cases.”
Regarding the set-aside fee, Rubenstein said the history of how the 5 percent set-aside was included in the settlement agreement was “troubling in that it implies that class counsel sought to significantly enhance their own fees without significantly enhancing their own work, or most importantly, their clients' recoveries.” He also said the size of the $112.5 million fee request undercuts the argument that counsel needs to be paid additional money to implement the agreement, and if the amount wasn't sufficient, class counsel is in the best position to seek more money from the NFL to cover those costs.
Given that the settlement will continue to pay out to claimants over the next 65 years, Rubenstein suggested the court could pay a significant portion of the $112.5 million fees upfront, then stagger the remainder to ensure attorneys continue to be compensated as the claims process continues to be administered.
“Given that class counsel seek a fee award for 100 percent of the class's recovery now, even though many class members will not get paid for decades, some portion of that fee award should be set aside and paid out over time, to correspond with the implementation work that class counsel will have to do over time,” he said.
Anapol Weiss attorney Sol Weiss, who is also co-lead class counsel in the litigation, did not return a call seeking comment.
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 Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250