Big Law Winning Millions in Fees After Trump Caves on Census Litigation
The most recent settlement will see $2.5 million awarded to Covington & Burling and another $1.45 million to immigration and civil rights groups.
October 01, 2019 at 05:23 PM
5 minute read
The federal government has agreed to pay $6.65 million in legal fees tied to the Trump administration's failed attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
The most recent settlement will see $2.5 million awarded to Covington & Burling and another $1.45 million to immigration and civil rights groups. Arnold & Porter and the ACLU also got $2.7 million for similar litigation in New York, and a filing deadline for a third case in California is set for Oct. 11.
The California lawsuit involved some attorneys from Holland & Knight, who represented Los Angeles County. However, they did not file for attorney fees.
State attorneys for California have filed for attorneys fees, as has the education law firm Dannis Woliver Kelley.
In a copy of the settlement reached between Covington and Department of Justice attorneys, announced by the DOJ Monday, the federal government agreed to pay $2.2 million in attorney fees and another $300,000 in other costs, for a total of $2.5 million.
That's a significant cut to the more than $7.3 million Covington initially requested in an Aug. 15 filing. That court document said, under local guidelines, the law firm should be awarded at least $2.8 million.
The terms of the settlement means Covington received roughly $290,000 less than the minimum amount it said it should receive in the case.
Federal law allows parties in civil lawsuits to recoup costs from the federal government, in certain circumstances. BuzzFeed News first reported on the settlements in the Maryland and New York cases.
In the August filing, Covington argued they should be awarded attorney fees because it "prevailed outright against Defendants as a matter of law, and achieved this lawsuit's fundamental objective: to enjoin Defendants from inquiring about citizenship as part of the 2020 decennial Census."
"The Secretary of Commerce took his unlawful action willfully—in the face of the unanimous contrary recommendation of the sitting Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, its Chief Scientist, and other Census Bureau experts—and then misled both Congress and the public about the true impetus for the decision," the filing states. "Defendants compounded this manipulation and corruption of the administrative process with attempts in this litigation to improperly curate the administrative record and insulate the Secretary's real reasons for the decision from effective review."
The Covington lawyers argued that, as a result, they should be awarded fees "at prevailing market rates."
They pointed to their office's location in Washington, D.C., as to why the payment should be adjusted upward from the general guidelines for cost-of-living expenses.
They also said Covington's status as "a highly regarded firm with expertise in complex litigation" also meant that the court should adjust the rates above the guidelines.
At a maximum, they requested a total payment of nearly $7.3 million to cover attorney fees and other expenses. But they argued, under the guidelines, they were entitled to at least $2.8 million.
Declarations submitted with the request for attorney fees showed the billing rates for several Covington partners and associates.
For example, Shankar Duraiswamy, a partner at Covington's D.C. office, stated in the filing that his billing rate in 2018 was $825 an hour and increased to $895 an hour in 2019. Under those standard rates, his total fees for working on the litigation reached $1,185,859, according to an exhibit filed in court.
Another partner at Covington's New York office, Benjamin Duke, billed $1,120 an hour in 2019, up from $1,070 in 2018. His fees earned on the case, at those rates, totaled $1,602,403.
They were joined by eight associates at Covington, as well as two paralegals, a special counsel and a senior counsel.
Covington represented individual plaintiffs in the Maryland census lawsuit who argued that asking about citizenship on the 2020 census would decrease response rates for immigrant communities and lead to an inaccurate population count.
The U.S. Supreme Court found in a 5-4 decision that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was not forthright in his rationale for adding the question, and remanded the matter back to the agency. President Donald Trump still attempted to include the question on the survey, but officials eventually dropped the effort.
Those plaintiffs represented by Covington were joined in their lawsuit by several immigrant and civil rights organizations. Those groups also settled with the DOJ for attorney fees, receiving $1.45 million after originally requesting about $4.7 million from the government.
That means the Justice Department will pay a total of $3.95 million in legal fees for the Maryland case.
The DOJ settled with the ACLU and Arnold & Porter in federal court in New York earlier this year over attorney fees in another census lawsuit, agreeing to pay the organization $2.7 million, according to BuzzFeed News.
Attorney fees are still pending in federal court in California, where the citizenship question was also challenged. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg for the Northern District of California recently extended the deadline to file a motion for attorney fees to Oct. 11, a sign that a similar settlement could be in the works.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSplit 4th Circuit Ruling Is a Win for Covington & Burling in US Army Base Attack Litigation
3 minute readA Conversation with NLJ Lifetime Achievement Award Winner Jeff Smith
11 minute readBiden's Nominee Secures U.S. Senate Confirmation for Phila. Federal Judgeship
3 minute read'Export Violations'?: RTX Settles Civil Charges With $200M Consent Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Prior Inconsistent Statements and Medical Malpractice Defense
- 2Public Interest Calendar of Events
- 3Why Law Firms Should Focus on IA for Improved Gen AI
- 4Post-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
- 5Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250