Wilmer, Dechert Among Firms Awarded $6.8M in Texas Voter ID Litigation
The judge cut Wilmer's fee request by 60% after finding the firm failed to provide detailed billing rates.
May 27, 2020 at 08:09 PM
4 minute read
The state of Texas was ordered to pay $6.8 million in legal fees and expenses for its defense of a controversial voter ID law, including $1.5 million to Dechert and $368,976 to Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
The prevailing attorneys, who represented several plaintiffs including Democratic Congressman Marc Veasey, originally asked U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos to award $8.9 million in fees and expenses.
Wilmer took one of the largest cuts, nearly 65% from what it requested, after failing to provide details on the qualifications of its legal team, especially in regard to voting rights litigation, according to Ramos' order. Law firm partner Jonathan Paikin also failed to provide billing rates for the legal team, said Ramos, of the Southern District of Texas.
"The state has objected to much of the billing as duplicative, excessive, and vague," Ramos wrote. "Paikin filed a reply declaration that stands on its billing practices and complains that the request is modest, foregoing 'millions' of dollars. The court is not satisfied with the reasonableness of the original billing or its defense. Wilmer has not presented its individual attorneys' qualifications, rate, or time in a manner that allows the court to address them individually. For instance, there is no summary collating the billing by attorney or task."
Paikin said the law firm is proud of the work it contributed toward winning at trial and through and the appeal process.
"The WilmerHale team expended a significant amount of time and resources to this successful outcome and is pleased that the Court awarded $6.8 million to WilmerHale and the other plaintiffs that handled this case," he said.
Th firms filing requesting fees said it used the fee schedule used by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and links off. While the filing said those rates were significantly below what the firm general charges, it does not go into detail per attorney.
Alejandro Garcia, deputy director of communications for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, said the state will appeal. Texas had asked that the award not exceed nearly $5 million.
"The district court's order is disappointing in light of Texas prevailing in the litigation upholding its common-sense voter ID law," Garcia said in a statement. "We plan on seeking appellate review of the court's award of attorney's fees in a case where the state won."
Ramos largely dismissed Texas' claim that it was the prevailing party in the litigation that has ping-ponged between the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court since 2014.
The underlying litigation involved claims that Texas photo identification law potentially disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of citizens. Ramos' order Wednesday says the ultimate conclusion was the Texas' law had racially discriminatory results in violation of the Voting Rights Act and that "plaintiffs were entitled to a remedy that would ameliorate its draconian limits."
The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed as moot after Texas lawmakers passed new voting legislation. That new law largely mirrored provisions of the court's order for interim relief, a footnote in Ramos' decision said.
Ramos's order also refused to reduce fees associated with handling the fee request, as Texas requested.
"The state has employed every possible attack on counsel's time and expenses and has made significant errors in its own arithmetic and method," Ramos wrote. "This approach has multiplied the hours that the parties and this court have had to expend in this effort—contrary to the Hensley admonition against turning a fee request into a second litigation."
Other law firms receiving awards for their work in the litigation include:
Campaign Legal Center: $793,357
Brazil & Dunn: $1,096,842
Derfner & Altman: $649,760
Baron: $130,658
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights: $581,702
Brennan Center for Justice: $292,313
Texas NAACP: $68,337
Mexican American Legislative Caucus: $41,366
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund: $445,928
Rolando L. Rios & Associates: $166,444
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid: $653,084
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 AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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