« Ind. Courts - Video and audio system at Steuben County Courthouse | Main | Ind. Law - More on: Challenge to $1-per-page fee for printouts of county recorder's digital records »
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Law - More on: Those fighting over wine fees include Indiana law professor
Updating this March 22nd ILB entry, based on a story from the Sacramento Bee, is another story today from the Bee. Some quotes:
WASHINGTON - The state of Michigan has now settled with some but not all of the lawyers who helped overturn state bans on direct wine shipments.The partial settlement means a $150,000 payday for former independent counsel Kenneth Starr's law firm, which helped secure last year's Supreme Court victory cheered by California wineries.
Starr's firm, Kirkland and Ellis, originally asked for $329,000 for its work on the wine-shipping cases. That request included $750 an hour for Starr's work. In the settlement filed Friday in federal court, the state agreed to $150,000. * * *
The fight over other fees, though, is exposing more behind-the-scenes legal maneuvering. In particular, new testimony is showing how Starr's controversial reputation both attracted and repelled those challenging the state bans on direct shipping, as well as how big names get tactically deployed in Supreme Court challenges. * * *
In their legal filing, Michigan officials credited Kirkland and Ellis with "establishing the legal theories and foundational structure of the Supreme Court merits brief, and providing legal advice and strategy" for the winning argument.
But while settling with Kirkland and Ellis, Michigan is now contesting a separate request for $1.2 million in legal fees filed by the attorneys who first brought the direct-shipping cases. Michigan contends Indiana University law professor James Tanford and his partners should be paid $371,000 instead of the $1.2 million originally asked.
In their latest legal filings, Michigan officials contend Tanford billed for "unnecessarily duplicative" work. Michigan officials also question some billing statements as incomplete and dispute Tanford's request for bonus fees based on the case's significance and complexity.
Fee disagreements like this are common. In the course of resolving the fee disagreements, though, new light is being shed on how lawyers operate. This includes Michigan's questioning of why former Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan was brought in to deliver oral arguments for the wineries.
"The hiring of Kathleen Sullivan to write the merits brief in the Supreme Court and to conduct oral argument was the result of political correctness, not legal necessity," Michigan officials claimed in a legal brief filed last week.
No one doubted Sullivan's supreme competence. The Harvard Law School graduate has a national reputation and had previously argued two cases before the Supreme Court.
Michigan officials, though, said Sullivan amounted to an unnecessary luxury. State officials contend the arguments could have been presented by Starr, except that some plaintiffs didn't want to be associated with the man whose five-year, $73 million investigation led to the impeachment of President Clinton.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 28, 2006 09:17 PM
Posted to General Law Related