Plaintiff’s lawyers who pressed and then settled a class action against Microsoft supposedly on behalf of 14 million California consumers now want fees and costs to a tune approaching $300 million, but Microsoft has been fighting the request as excessive. Lead counsel Townsend and Townsend and Crew “is requesting at least $97 million in fees and costs for itself and another $197 million for 34 other firms that worked on the case,” which resulted in an all-voucher settlement valued (or so it seems) at $1.1 billion. But lawyers for the software giant say the firm “piggybacked on the U.S. government’s antitrust case and other private litigation”. Microsoft says Townsend partner Eugene Crew would get $3,019 for each of the 6,198 hours he says he spent on the case; collectively, the lawyers are seeking high hourly fees for each of the 209,000 hours they claim to have spent on the case, many of which were in fact assigned to paralegals and other underlings. (Brenda Sandburg, “Microsoft Says Class Fee Request Doesn’t Compute”, The Recorder, Feb. 23). As usual in this sort of case, the lawyers have brought in a parade of law profs and other eminences to testify to the total reasonableness of their fee request –why, they were a bargain! But Larry Schonbrun, the Berkeley, Calif. sole practitioner who has made himself into a chief thorn in the side of the class action business (see Oct. 12)(more), is objecting: “In a filing on behalf of two class members, Schonbrun said a final fee award should not be decided until the court knows how many class members redeem their vouchers.” (Brenda Sandburg, “Show Me the Money”, The Recorder, Jan. 20). David Giacalone (Feb. 22) headlines his item on the story: “Putting the Piggy in Piggyback”. Instant update: hearing to review the settlement begins in San Francisco courtroom of Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado (Brenda Sandburg, “Microsoft Settlement Getting Another Look”, The Recorder, Mar. 31). More coverage: see May 12. Update Sept. 23: judge slashes request to $112 million.

Filed under: antitrust, class actions

One of the more noteworthy contributions to the recent Business Insurance symposium on tort reform (Feb. 16, not online — see Mar. 15) came from Yale law prof George Priest, who wrote as follows: “The single worst development in modern tort law is that many businesses are now adopting the tactics of the trial lawyers — litigation, including class action litigation — to pursue competitive interests. The recent antitrust class action by Wal-Mart and hundreds of the nation’s retailers against Visa and MasterCard [see Aug. 22 — ed.] was only successful because Wal-Mart convinced the courts to expand class action availability. There are many other examples of businesses seeking an expansion of liability to promote their own interests. Some years ago, MetLife sought an unjustifiable expansion of insurance coverage law in its pursuit of recovery against Aetna. When business pursues a short-term advantage by joining the trial lawyers, the tort reform cause is truly lost.” (& letter to the editor, Apr. 2)

Filed under: antitrust, class actions