|
Three Examples of Excessive Lawyer's Fees
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF MONICA KRISTEN STUART, . Case No. 96-2339 a minor child OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING Mark Stuart, natural parent of the Ward, by and through his undersigned counsel, and files this objection to the Petition for Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Attorney's Fees and Expenses, and states: 1. Mark Stuart is an interested person in the guardianship as the natural father of Monica Kristen Stuart 2. The Custodians of the Ward have filed a Petition for an Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees and Expenses. 3. The bulk of the fees and expenses that the Custodians are seeking reimbursement for are the Fees and Expenses associated with a juvenile dependency proceeding the Custodians initiated against the natural father. 4. The action was not in the best interest of the child, but was sought on behalf of family members as a vendetta against Mr. Stuart, the Ward's natural father. 5.The juvenile dependency was vigorously contested by the natural father and the case is currently pending before the Second District Court of Appeals. 6.In the juvenile dependency proceedings, the Attorney for the Custodians represented to the Court that the Guardianship funds would not be touched to fund the dependency proceedings. Contrary to this representation in another Court proceeding, this same Attorney for the Custodians has now filed the aforementioned Petition seeking reimbursement of those fees and expenses from the Guardianship Court. 7. Given that the juvenile dependency is still on appeal, it is premature for this Court to determine that the juvenile dependency proceeding benefitted the Ward. 8.According to the Petition filed by the Custodian, The Attorney also seeks fees for work on a case filed against the Estate of Eugenia Stuart. To date, no estate has been opened for the Estate of Eugenia Stuart. From the time records, it appears that the court case was a mortgage foreclosure action. It is inappropriate for these fees to be paid for from the Ward's funds when fees on behalf of the Estate should be recovered from the Estate, not from the assets of the Ward. 9.The Court in the juvenile dependency proceeding ordered the Custodians to bear the fees and costs of the Guardian Ad Litem. However, they now Petition in the Guardianship Court for reimbursement of those fees and costs. 10. The expenses of the Psychologists set forth in the Petition were not for treatment. Rather the expenses were incurred for litigation purposes only and are not proper expenses to be paid out by the Guardian of the Ward. ll. If the Court granted the Custodians' petition, it would significantly deplete this very young Ward's assets which would be contrary to the best interests of the Ward. Wherefore, Mark Stuart, seeks this Court deny the Petition for an Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Attorney Fees and Expenses as excessive and not in the best interest of the Ward. Steven P. Riley, Esq. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF MONICA KRISTEN STUART, . Case No. 96-2339 Division A. a minor child. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY FOR GUARDIAN OF PROPERTY Mark Stuart, natural parent of the Ward files this Motion to Disqualify the Attorney for the Guardian of the Property. As grounds, the Movant would state as follows: 1.The Movant is an Interested Party as the Natural father of Monica Kristen Stuart. 2.Patty Glickman Cox, is the Guardian of the Property and is represented by Attorney Cliff Curry. 3. Linda and Richard Phelps, the Custodians of the Ward, are also represented by Attorney Cliff Curry. 4.The Guardian of the property has a duty to preserve the assets of the Ward and act in the best interests of the Ward. 5. Attorney Cliff Curry has filed a Petition for Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Attorney's Fees and Expenses for $50,000.17. By filing such a Petition, Mr. Curry has a direct conflict in representing the Guardian of the Property and the Custodians of the Ward. 6.The aforementioned Petition brings to issue the reasonableness of $26,6988.91 dollars worth of Attorney Cliff Curry's fees and expenses in a juvenile dependency proceeding and whether such fees and expenses can legally be reimbursed from the Ward's funds. 7. The Counsel for the Attorney for the Guardian of the Property would not have the ability to provide independent counsel to the Guardian of the Property regarding the reasonableness of his own fees and expenses. 8.The aforementioned Petition puts counsel for the Guardian of the Property and Attorney for the Custodians in a conflict of interest. Wherefore, Movant, seeks this Court disqualify Attorney Cliff Curry from Representing both the Guardian of the Property and the Custodians of the Ward because of the conflict of interest. In the alternative, Movant would ask this Court appoint a Court Monitor pursuant to Section 744.107, Florida Statutes to provide an independent view of the Petition for and Order to Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees and Expenses. Steven P. Riley, Esq. Law Offices of Steven P. Riley, P.A. 3333 Henderson Blvd., Suite 150 Tampa, Fl 33609-2984 (813) 877-43357 Florida Bar No. 0765856 Attorney for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE FOREGOING MOTION HAS BEEN MAILED ON THE DAY OF MARCH, 1998 TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL: CLIFF CURRY, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR GUARDIAN P.O. BOX 1143 Brandon, Florida 33509-1143 Attorney for Guardian of Property and Attorney for Custodians Steven P. Rilev. Esq. Submitted by: Felix7851@aol.com
APRIL 16, 2009 Lawyers Set to Profit on Lehman Weil Gotshal Asks Bankruptcy Court to Approve Record Quarterly Payout of $55 Million By ASHBY JONES Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which set a record as the largest company to file for bankruptcy protection, is on course to yield one of the biggest bonanzas for lawyers. New York-based Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP earlier this week asked a federal bankruptcy judge in New York to sign off on a $55.1 million payment for its work representing Lehman. That marks the biggest quarterly fee request made by lawyers representing a bankrupt company, according to Lynn LoPucki, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who runs a bankruptcy-fee database. Mr. LoPucki estimates that Weil stands to bring in more than $200 million in fees by the end of the case. That would exceed the next-highest debtor counsel fee, the $159 million that Weil earned during the Enron bankruptcy. A Weil spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. [legal windfall] The fee-payment request, filed Monday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, tallies work lawyers and other Weil staff members say they have performed between Sept. 15 and the end of January. The firm says it worked more than 100,000 billable hours during that period. Lead lawyer Harvey Miller is asking to be paid $950 for each of the nearly 795 hours he worked during the period. An expense request that Weil also filed Monday includes more than $200,000 for business meals, $439,000 for computerized and "other" research, $115,000 on local transportation and $287,000 on duplicating charges, at 10 cents a page. "As Lehman's employees rushed out of Lehman's offices with boxes and suitcases filled with their belongings, [Weil] attorneys rushed in," the filing reads. "Literally overnight, WGM marshaled its resources the world over, which included over 490 attorneys." Weil has about 1,300 lawyers world-wide. Nearly a dozen other law firms have so far submitted fee applications in the Lehman matter, requesting a total of $27 million. The case's total amount of court-approved fees -- to lawyers, financial advisers, restructuring consultants and others -- could top $900 million, Mr. LoPucki estimates. Lehman's Chapter 11 filing is one of the most complex in U.S. history. The firm's Sept. 15 bankruptcy petition marked one of the biggest shocks in the credit crisis that engulfed Wall Street last summer and continued throughout the fall. At the time of the filing, Lehman had $613 billion in debts. In such liquidations, lawyers are paid before creditors. Federal bankruptcy law requires a judge to approve payments for debtor counsel. A hearing on the request is set for May 13. Lehman creditors have until May 6 to file objections. The U.S. Trustee's office, which oversees bankruptcy cases, declined to comment. The lead lawyer for the committee of unsecured creditors, Dennis Dunne at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP in New York, didn't return a request for comment. Some bankruptcy experts say the fee requests highlight a fundamental flaw in the process by which advisers get paid, because there are limited ways to verify a firm's charges. Mr. LoPucki, a frequent critic of the bankruptcy process, says firms representing one group involved in a bankruptcy case are often loath to challenge another firm's fees. [Weil's filing includes fees for lead bankruptcy lawyer Harvey Miller, 795 hours at $950 apiece.] Bloomberg News Weil's filing includes fees for lead bankruptcy lawyer Harvey Miller, 795 hours at $950 apiece. John Marquess, the president of Legal Cost Control Inc., a New Jersey-based legal-fee auditor, says that sometimes at the outset of a bankruptcy, a law firm will throw an excess of people on a case. "Bankruptcies are by their nature 'Oh my God' situations and sometimes the lawyers will say, 'Let's do whatever we have to to make sure we can get this company out of bankruptcy.'" Firms on occasion will later agree to cut their fees, he says. Most bankruptcy lawyers and experts, while surprised at the size of Weil's request, stopped short of calling it excessive. David Skeel, a bankruptcy-law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the fees paid to Weil and other top firms are often worth the results they deliver. "Weil did great work in Enron," he says. "It started in complete chaos, but in the end, creditors got a decent recovery. They sold off assets at decent prices and pulled back money from banks." The wave of recent filings has meant huge paydays for some firms, especially those such as Weil and Kirkland & Ellis LLP, with strong bankruptcy practices. But some troubled companies, including a handful of retailers, have opted to liquidate rather than pursue restructurings, largely due to poor market conditions and an unavailability of debt financing. Marie Beaudette contributed to this article.
|
||