Boies Schiller Can Recover Only a Third of Requested Fees in Avenatti Nike Extortion Case
Nike's lawyers at Boies Schiller have said they don't want any restitution paid in the case until Avenatti pays individual victims in his other criminal cases.
February 14, 2022 at 07:02 PM
4 minute read
Fee DisputesBlaming in part the use of block billing, a federal judge said Monday that Nike Inc. can recover less than a third of its requested restitution in Michael Avenatti's extortion case.
U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe in the Southern District of New York rejected some of the requested $856,162 attorney fees from Boies Schiller Flexner as unrecoverable under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.
But the reductions grew even more because the judge said he couldn't distinguish some unrecoverable expenses from recoverable ones, because Boies Schiller had grouped everything though block billing, and hadn't attributed specific amounts of time to particular tasks.
"This court cannot now attempt to extricate recoverable expenses from non-recoverable expenses in block-billing entries. Nor should it," Gardephe wrote, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Lagos v. United States. "Having carefully reviewed the revised Nike time entries, the court has subtracted from the total requested amount any entry that contains an unrecoverable expense."
Gardephe said Southern District courts have interpreted Lagos as limiting restitution to expenses for investigative activities specifically requested by prosecutors, which in the judge's view does not include activities related to Avenatti's postarrest activities. This was an issue last summer when prosecutors initially submitted a restitution request for $1 million of a claimed $1.7 million recoverable expense.
Avenatti's opposition complained about Boies Schiller's use of block billing, and Gardephe deferred decision because he said Nike's submissions were inadequate and also contained unrecoverable expenses.
That led to Nike's revised request of $856,162, which Avenatti lawyer Scott Srebnick opposed as seeking reimbursement for unnecessary expenses, and again said Nike doesn't qualify as a victim under federal restitution standards so it deserves no restitution.
Gardephe's ruling on Monday says Nike is indeed a victim deserving of restitution because the attorney fees it incurred were a result of Avenatti's crimes, but it sided with Avenatti regarding the recoverability of some of the expenses.
"For example, Nike requests reimbursement for attorneys' fees generated by several Boies Schiller attorneys who spent hours reviewing, analyzing, researching and corresponding with Nike about Avenatti's motions to dismiss," according to the 21-page ruling. "But there is no evidence that Boies Schiller's assessment of Avenatti's motions was invited, required, requested, or otherwise induced by the government, much less that it was of use to the government."
Nike's Boies Schiller lawyers tried to address the block billing concerns in their revised request last July, writing, "[r]ather than try to estimate what portion of the work was recoverable and what was not, Nike omitted all mixed billing entries, totaling roughly $815,000.
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 AllThe Ethics of Freelance Lawyering, Part 4: Fee-Splitting and Malpractice Insurance
6 minute readThe Ethics of Freelance Lawyering, Part 1: Duty to Inform the Client and Fees Charged to the Client/Upcharging
6 minute readLewis Brisbois Sues Realty Firm Cushman & Wakefield Over $86K+ in Unpaid Legal Fees
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Sues to Enforce $1 Million Judgment Against Ex-Client
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
- 2Walter Taggart, Villanova Law Professor, Dies at 81
- 3$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
- 4Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 5Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
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