A California federal judge has drawn a line on soaring legal bills, rejecting a lawyer’s proposed hourly rate of $3,000 while approving more than $22.6 million in legal fees arising from a $68 million settlement of privacy claims against Google.
US District Judge Beth Labson Freeman, sitting in San Jose, ruled that David Scott of plaintiffs’ law firm Scott + Scott could not charge $3,000 an hour for the purpose of calculating the legal fee award. She instead capped his rate at $1,600 per hour.
“It is not unusual for named partners to charge more than other partners. And the court is cognizant that rates increase year to year. But not to $3,000 an hour,” Freeman wrote in her order, describing the proposed rate as “patently unreasonable.”
Despite the reduction, the judge approved the lawyers’ request for 33% of the settlement fund, finding the overall award reasonable and consistent with prevailing market rates.
When a $3,000 hourly bill becomes the norm
The ruling comes as hourly charges at the upper end of the US legal market continue to climb. While Freeman considered the proposed rate excessive in this case, other prominent lawyers at major firms have reportedly crossed the $3,000-per-hour threshold.
Partners at firms including Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Milbank and Quinn Emanuel have charged rates above that level, while some lawyers at Susman Godfrey have reportedly commanded as much as $4,000 an hour.
Adam Levitin, a bankruptcy law professor at Georgetown University, said the market for elite legal services has shifted considerably.
For leading partners at major firms, he noted, $3,000 an hour has increasingly become an accepted market rate, whether or not clients consider it reasonable.
Courts routinely approve comparable hourly charges for lawyers representing debtors in bankruptcy proceedings, Levitin and Nancy Rapoport, a fee examiner and law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, observed.
Yet the headline hourly figure may not tell the full story of an expensive legal case.
Rapoport argued that staffing decisions often have a greater impact on the final bill than individual lawyers’ rates. Bringing too many attorneys to hearings and meetings, or assigning work to professionals whose time could be used more efficiently, can cause legal costs to balloon.
Freeman did not raise objections to the plaintiffs’ staffing arrangements in the Google litigation. Instead, she praised the result achieved, describing the settlement as “excellent.”
Partners’ rates face closer scrutiny
The Google case also highlights how courts can scrutinise billing rates when they are required to approve legal fees. Law firms generally do not disclose their standard hourly charges publicly, but details can emerge in class actions and bankruptcy cases where judicial approval is necessary.
Scott + Scott defended its rates in a July fee application, saying they reflected prevailing market prices for lawyers and firms in California with comparable qualifications, experience and expertise.
Court records show that David Scott, the firm’s managing partner, billed approximately 64 hours on the case, seeking $194,100 in fees for his work.
Another attorney at the firm, Daryl Scott, initially submitted an hourly rate of $1,960. Freeman also reduced that figure, applying a $1,600 hourly cap to the plaintiffs’ lawyers considered in the fee calculation.
Geoffrey Horn and Vincent Briganti of Lowey Dannenberg, another firm representing the plaintiffs, had submitted rates of $1,795 an hour.
Representatives of Scott + Scott and the court declined to comment on the ruling. Attorneys at Lowey Dannenberg also declined to comment.
The dispute behind the $68 million settlement
The settlement resolves allegations that Google’s voice-activated Assistant unlawfully recorded private conversations after being triggered and shared information that was used for targeted advertising.
Google denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle, court documents show, citing the risks, expenses and uncertainty associated with continued litigation.
A company spokesperson said Google was pleased to have resolved the dispute.
In class actions, lawyers representing plaintiffs often work on a contingency basis, meaning they generally receive no legal fees if they fail to secure a recovery. Their compensation can therefore depend heavily on the outcome and the court-approved share of a settlement.
Law firms continue raising their prices
The dispute unfolds against a broader rise in legal costs. Hourly billing rates at large US law firms increased by an average of 7% in 2025, according to a report by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law’s Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession.
For law firms, annual rate increases have become an important driver of revenue and profitability. But the latest ruling illustrates that market demand does not automatically guarantee judicial acceptance of every fee submitted for approval.
The judge did not reject the lawyers’ overall compensation request. Instead, she approved the substantial fee award while drawing a distinction between the value of the work and the hourly price attached to it.
As elite legal rates continue to rise, that distinction could remain central to disputes over who ultimately pays for increasingly expensive legal representation.
