Legal Fees a ‘Breathtaking’ $93M-Plus in Bratz Battle

Attorney Fees

Legal Fees a ‘Breathtaking’ $93M-Plus in Bratz Battle

Posted Sep 10, 2008, 06:17 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Two toy companies battling for rights to the Bratz dolls-with-attitude have racked up legal fees of at least $93 million in the case.

MGA Entertainment has spent $63 million in fees since 2004 defending a lawsuit by Mattel Inc. that contended the doll’s designer conceived of the idea before leaping from Mattel to MGA, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.). Plaintiff Mattel has spent $30 million in just the first half of the year, the story says.

Mattel was awarded $100 million in the case, far short of the more than $2 billion in damages it had sought.

The Daily Journal got MGA’s figures in a lawsuit it filed against its insurers seeking full payment of the Bratz fees, while the publication got the Mattel figure from a stock analyst.

Frederick "Rick" McKnight, partner-in-charge of Jones Day's Los Angeles office who focuses on complex litigation, told the publication that $93 million in legal fees for a case that is not a class action is "breathtaking."

"Complex cases are expensive, especially when the stakes are so large and important," McKnight said. Apart from class actions, "I am unaware of a single case that has cost so much."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Dr. Harry J. Maue - 2 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 18 hours, 37 minutes ago

I think both companies owe their respective shareholders that these fees are fair and reasonable and are in compliance with each company’s billing guidelines. As the founder of the legal auditing industry 25 years ago I’m amazed that to my knowledge neither company has engaged the services of a professional legal auditing company. I agree with Mr. Mcknight that these fees appear to be somewhat outrageous but without an objective third party audit it could be that all fees and expenses are justifiable. I hope that the CEO or CFO will see the merits of an independent forensic legal audit. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Maue
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 8 minutes ago

I am sorry, but this is too much to pay for legal fees.

There are plenty of people with legal degrees that need work and would work for MUCH less than $93 million.

I recommend that there be recruitment of deserving lawyers (BOTH WOMEN AND MEN) out of work to get paid who agree they will do this work for less than the OUTRAGEOUS sum of $93 million.

This is what I have been talking about. Equal pay for equal work. Not favoring men or women, but giving jobs to the unemployed men and women EQUALLY. Anything less is OUTRAGEOUS.
Posted by Pat Biswanger - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 36 minutes ago

Odd that the article doesn’t give the names of the law firms that got the $93 million.
Posted by Jon Edwards - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

Ellen, you spend a lot of time shouting about equality, and you don’t even know the details of the cases, or whether the firm might have a woman working on the case. For all we know, although it is likely not to be, the lead attorney might have been a woman. And tell us, why in the world should a large company hire a crew of currently unemployed attorneys to do the work when they have a good firm on retainer for their needs (assuming they don’t actually have litigators on staff?) Going out on a limb here, but for an attorney to be unemployed, it seems they are either seeking work in the wrong field, are unwilling to relocate for a job, or maybe they are unqualified for the jobs they are seeking. Why hire an inexperienced litigator? if she is experienced, she is currently employed. It is also likely that law firms aren’t expanding like you think they should be. Makes me wonder about your employment status.
Posted by boston IP - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 1 hour, 44 minutes ago

First off, $93 million between two firms may seem unreasonable, but when $100s of millions were at stake, it may not be. Think about it - Mattel doubled its investment. Not bad.

As for the out of work lawyers who could do it for less, how do you know they could handle such a complicated litigation with, among others, complex employment and IP issues. When the stakes are so high, you don’t want to go bargin basement shopping. Would you go have a necessary surgery from an out of work doctor just because he could/would do the job for less? What if you needed your appendix out and he was a general physician? Would you still use him. So your recommendation, while notes, doesn’t make sense.
Posted by STL - 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 31 minutes ago

Only Barschevsky would take an article about expensive litigation and turn it into an equal pay issue. Give me a break. You can’t possibly know how many men and women were on the case or how much they were paid.
Posted by prosecute - 2 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 59 minutes ago

This is interesting in light of the Sept. 9 article about the inordinate costs of civil litigation. Hmmm…
Posted by plasticsruleaskreginageorge - 2 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 35 minutes ago

Despite all the claims for feminism and equality amoung the sexes, this just proves once again that the gold standard of how women are projected in our society is contained in the $8.99 plastic barbie doll. The masses are still buying these barbie dolls, which makes the cost/benefit ratio worth the litigation costs.
Posted by Jack - 2 months, 3 weeks, 21 hours, 59 minutes ago

These are the most useless, vapid articles the ABA could possibly publish. Enormous legal costs?!?! Gasp! Way to encourage more anti-litigation political rhetoric, ABA.
Posted by associate - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 23 hours, 55 minutes ago

Well, when executives seek out the most expensive representation that they can find, wouldn’t you expect litigation to get continually more expensive.

If an exec wins a case with a medium priced firm that concentrates in the area of practice concerned, then they were “doing their job.“ If the exec loses the case with the same firm, he shouldn’t have “hired some cut-rate firm.“

We’ve actually lost clients due to lower billing rates. We’ve also quoted rates at a 150% premium because we knew the client would go elsewhere if we weren’t expesive enough.

Expensive litigation just fills a void in the market. If execs didn’t demand it, firms wouldn’t provide it.
Posted by R - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 8 minutes ago

Ellen Barshevsky is absolutely right. Why, I would have represented MGA for $50 million tops - flat fee.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Attorney Fees