Law Firms
MoFo Accused of Charging ‘Staggering’ Attorney Fees
Posted Apr 10, 2009 5:03 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A suit filed by a former client claims Morrison & Foerster charged a staggering $4.8 million in attorney fees for its defense in a patent infringement suit, while failing to provide adequate representation.
The suit was filed by Ecast Inc., an Internet digital entertainment company, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.).
Also named in the suit are two former MoFo lawyers who left the firm in 2007, Gerald Dodson and Erica Wilson. Ecast says the defendants failed to tell the company about cheaper legal strategies and did not uphold commitments on which lawyers would represent it in court.
Ecast later paid $2.65 million to new lawyers who took over the case. The suit says the $4.8 million in fees charged by MoFo weren’t justified, according to the story. "Ecast alleges that this staggering amount of legal fees is an example of unconscionable, abusive and unfettered expenditure of attorneys fees," the suit says.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Bird Smack
Apr 10, 2009 7:12 AM CST
Those unscrupulous MoFos!
If ECast had won after bludgeoning their opponents, I imagine they would not have complained.
BigLaw Rules!
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 10, 2009 7:30 AM CST
There should be lower rates for the staggering attorneys (just as nobody would expect to pay full price for downer cattle or sheep).
Flag this comment
Max Legroom
Apr 10, 2009 8:06 AM CST
“Staggering fees” v. No fees in “[t]he hope is that people will leave MoFo with a good taste in their mouth.” Sounds like their moniker needs to change from MoFo to SchiZo.
Flag this comment
Raleigh
Apr 10, 2009 8:20 AM CST
Apparently, the Client didn’t “moo” soon enough, and someone believed they should “milk ‘em till they moo”. What is even more astonishing, is when they got called on the carpet for the bill, who said our bills are defensible, and let’s go to litigation in lieu of settlement?
Flag this comment
Lowly Solo
Apr 10, 2009 11:06 AM CST
Not too sure I would want my firm referred to as “MoFo”
Flag this comment
Dr. Harry J. Maue
Apr 11, 2009 7:10 AM CST
If Ecast feels that these fees of MoFo are excessive and unreasonable then the easy solution is to retain the services of a reputable legal auditing company. Upon completion of the audit both parties will be able to determine the extent of alledged billing abuses. Be sure to select a company that has extensive experience in assisting in the resolution of attorney client fees disputes. It really is that straight forward and simple and the truth shall prevail. Dr.HarryJ. Maue, Chairman & CEO of Staurt Maue,Ltd. Saint Louis ,Missouri
Flag this comment
Marina, Morgan Hill, CA
Apr 17, 2009 2:11 PM CST
It is about time someone called these unscrupulous and overbilling law firms on the carpet! I hope these lawyers have to pay back every single penny and MORE to their former client.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.