Wilson Sonsini Sued in New York by Ex-Clients Seeking to Stop $480K Fee Arbitration
The former clients said Wilson Sonsini deceived them to get their consent to arbitrate over fees and failed to alert them as costs mounted.
April 17, 2019 at 05:42 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A group of Israeli real estate investors sued Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on Thursday in an effort to stop an arbitration initiated by the firm over $480,000 in unpaid legal fees. The former clients claim Wilson Sonsini tricked them into signing an engagement letter with the firm and then blew past billing benchmarks.
The investors' suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court by Rafael Barouch Elkaim and his co-plaintiffs, seeks to halt an arbitration that Wilson Sonsini initiated last month against them over unpaid fees.
The four men hired Wilson Sonsini last year on behalf of dozens of investors who alleged in a separate lawsuit that they were defrauded out of $20 million by two Brooklyn real estate developers. Most of that suit had been sent to arbitration by the time the four men reached out to Wilson Sonsini. Elkaim said he resisted signing a Wilson Sonsini engagement agreement until law firm partner Moe Fodeman assured him that “all attorneys” required fee disputes be arbitrated.
“Had petitioners been aware that Fodeman's description of the universal practice of New York attorneys to include arbitration provisions in their engagement letters was false, they would not have agreed to the arbitration provision or entered into the engagement agreement,” the suit said.
Elkaim and his fellow investors said Wilson Sonsini started working on their case in April 2018 and gave them the engagement agreement in May, which said it was “contemplated” that the firm would use an initial retainer of $100,000 on pre-litigation research into the facts and law of their real estate dispute. The retainer was paid later that month, and in June, Wilson Sonsini met with three of the men to discuss the firm's analysis.
At that meeting, the lawsuit against the firm alleges, one of the plaintiffs, Binyomin Halpern, took Fodeman aside and told him to not do more than $200,000 in billable work until he could give an estimate for what work was left to be done. Later that month, however, it was revealed that Wilson Sonsini billed $161,000 in May alone, and by the end of June, the firm had racked up more than $400,000 in fees, the lawsuit claims.
The plaintiffs said they believe the arbitration agreement was meant “to hide [Wilson Sonsini's] billing shenanigans from the public record.” They filed the engagement agreement and Wilson Sonsini's demand for arbitration as exhibits to their suit; they show that the firm agreed to a 10 percent discount that brought its lead partners' hourly rates to $865 and $880 per hour.
Yitzchak Eliezer Soloveichik, a lawyer at Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman who represents the plaintiffs, didn't respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Wilson Sonsini declined to discuss the allegations in detail, saying his firm would do so in court.
“We don't comment on ongoing litigation,” the spokesman said. “Nevertheless, we're going to aggressively defend and contest the allegations.”
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 AllJudge Asks: Should Tom Girardi Serve Sentence in a Medical Facility or Behind Bars?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 2Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
- 3Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 4Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 5Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
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