NALFA Conference in San Francisco.
The National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA) held its 2013 annual Attorneys Fees Conference in San Francisco on October 23, 2013. Although neither of the co-contributors of this blog were able to attend due to conflicts, looks like class actions were a dominant part of the discussion. One panelist indicated that judges were imposing more modest multipliers, generally preferring to use the percentage of fund approach. Nobody is going to get 10 to 20 times lodestar multiplier anymore, the panelist opined. (NOTE: In California state courts, the lodestar is the primary approach, “cross checked” by the percentage of fund approach--although this latter approach is the one preferred in most U.S. district courts.) William Downes, a former Wyoming federal judge, indicated that he did once award $10.5 million in fees to securities class action attorneys, which equated to a 25% percentage of the fund and a 2.78 multiplier. Judge Downes also expressed the opinion that successful class action attorneys may get larger fees given the class action certification obstacles having to be hurdled.
Justice Thompson’s First Year Observations From the Appellate Bench.
Justice David Thompson is the most recent appointee to the Fourth District, Division 3 appellate court (based in Santa Ana). In early November 2013, he provided some observations about his first year on the appellate bench to members of the Orange County Bar Appellate Section. Here are the highlights:
1. Briefs generally are too long and need to be edited to delete unnecessary repetition.
2. Factual recitations in briefs need to show both the good and the bad, as appellate review standards dictate.
3. He believes in concurring and dissenting opinions, seeing them as a way to keep developing jurisprudence--if these viewpoints are necessary. (To show that he believes in this, see his recent dissenting opinion in the Lueras decision.)
4. Most appeals do not involve “cutting edge” or “exciting” issues.
5. The biggest change for him (he was superior court judge who was elevated to the appellate bench) is the “loneliness” factor--he mainly has contact with his clerks, versus lawyers, clerks, parties, and other superior court colleagues while he was a lower court jurist.
Comments