A sign promoting Obamacare stands outside an insurance store in San Ysidro, San Diego, California, U.S., October 26, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
In a heated courtroom drama, the fate of a staggering $185 million fee awarded to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP now rests with a federal judge. This controversial sum, earned for winning a $3.7 billion judgment for a group of insurers against the Obama administration, has sparked a fierce debate over its fairness.
Judge Kathryn Davis of the U.S. Federal Claims Court initially granted the fee, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later questioned its validity, deeming the amount “extraordinarily high.” As the case was revisited, Quinn Emanuel’s representative, Adam Wolfson, argued that the $185 million—equivalent to 5% of the total judgment—was reasonable compared to similar cases.
However, the insurers involved, including UnitedHealthcare and Kaiser, vehemently disagreed. Represented by Moe Keshavarzi from Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, they argued that the fee should be significantly reduced, proposing a range between $11 million and $23 million. They claimed the $185 million translates to an astronomical hourly rate of over $18,000, far exceeding typical partner rates at the firm.
Despite the pushback, Quinn Emanuel stood by the fee, citing the substantial risks undertaken and the 10,000 hours reportedly spent on the case. The firm has already distributed the funds internally, confident in its legal stance, and has taken out insurance to protect its claim.
Meanwhile, in other legal fee news, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd sought $66.5 million for their role in a $350 million settlement with Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., over a data breach issue. A separate case in Chicago saw a $94 million fee awarded to three law firms for an antitrust lawsuit against several prestigious U.S. universities accused of unfair admission practices.
These cases highlight the ongoing controversies and debates surrounding legal fees in high-stakes litigation, with courts playing a pivotal role in determining what constitutes a fair reward for legal services rendered.
