Los Angeles Judge Says Cosby Must Pay Quinn Emanuel $2.7M in Fee Dispute
One year into his prison sentence and about seven months after settling a similar dispute with Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Bill Cosby has lost a confrontation with Quinn Emanuel over his legal fees.
September 25, 2019 at 12:03 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Bill Cosby can't get out of paying Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan more than $2.3 million in legal fees, a judge has ruled.
As Cosby approached his one-year anniversary in prison, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elaine Lu last week denied Cosby's motion to vacate an arbitration award Quinn Emanuel won earlier this year, granting the law firm's motion to confirm the award.
Lu ordered Cosby to pay the firm a total of more than $2.7 million, including prejudgment interest and arbitration fees. A hearing on the matter was held Sept. 20 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The ruling arrives about seven months after another case, in which Cosby was accused of failing to pay legal fees to Philadelphia-based Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, came to a close. That case, which involved a much smaller sum of $282,000, settled in February, according to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Cosby was sentenced to three to 10 years in prison Sept. 25, 2018, after his conviction for aggravated indecent assault and was led from a Pennsylvania courtroom in handcuffs.
Cosby filed a petition in April asking the Los Angeles court to vacate the arbitration award in Quinn Emanuel's favor. The filing included a copy of Cosby's original demand for arbitration, dated July 2017, which said the firm billed for more than 11,000 hours and $8.55 million in a nine-month period in 2015 and 2016.
Cosby paid over $4.3 million to the firm in 2015 and 2016 individually and through his insurer, AIG, court documents said, and Quinn Emanuel sought to recover over $4.8 million in the arbitration.
Cosby had alleged that the JAMS arbitration panel "exceeded its authority by allowing Quinn Emanuel to retain $4,328,170.78 in fees and awarding Quinn Emanuel an additional $2,390,870.00 in attorney's fees." The arbitration panel also awarded Quinn Emanuel arbitration fees of $190,313, in the January 2019 final award.
Retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges Carl West and Peter Lichtman and retired U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian for the Central District of California served on the arbitration panel.
Cosby also alleged in his petition that Quinn Emanuel inefficiently staffed his matters, noting that there were 38 billed professionals on his matters, including 28 lawyers. He alleged that the firm charged "unconscionable fees," citing hourly rates of up to $1,175 for some lawyers, $300 for paralegals and $365 for law clerks. And he alleged the firm made "risky and ineffective strategy decisions."
Christopher Tayback and Joseph Sarles led the Quinn Emanuel team and were admitted to represent Cosby in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, in the Philadelphia suburbs. The firm withdrew its representation in July 2016.
Cosby also alleged in the original complaint that Quinn Emanuel did not disclose potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual representation of Cosby and insurer AIG.
With regard to the arbitration specifically, Cosby alleged that his rights were prejudiced because the panel refused to postpone the arbitration until after criminal proceedings concluded. "As a result, petitioner was forced to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during his deposition in this matter," the petition said.
Jeremy Osher and Steven Kuehl of Boren, Osher & Luftman, who represented Cosby in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday morning.
A spokeswoman for Quinn Emanuel also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|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 AllWhile Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
4 minute readThe Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 2Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 3UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 4Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 56th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
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