Trial Court Awards $12.5 Million in Attorney's Fees and Expenses in Baker McKenzie Malpractice Lawsuit
Last week Jones County Circuit Court Judge Billy Joe Landrum awarded over $12.5 million in attorney's fees and expenses in the Evans v. Baker & McKenzie legal malpractice case. Here is the Order for the Plaintiff's fees. Here is the Order for the Cross-Plaintiff's fees.
Judge Landrum awarded the Plaintiff attorney's fees of $9,602,372 and expenses of $228,043. He awarded the Cross-Plaintiff $2,532,819 in attorney's fees and $203,113 in expenses. In both cases the attorney's fee consisted of 10% of the recovery plus actual hours spent on the case.
Mississippi law allows plaintiffs who recover punitive damages to seek attorney's fees and expenses. In this case the award raised Baker & McKenzie's total liability exposure to over $115 million. Of course, it is Baker & McKenzie's liability insurance company that is potentially on the hook. Throw in the cost of bond and the appeal and there is something like $120 million riding on the appeal.
Not much analysis in the order; I suppose it's as likely to stand as the rest of the verdict.
One would think the plaintiff could settle and still tote off quite a bit of money.
Anderson, these folks have dang near litigated each other to death so I wouldn't expect any settlement. On the other side, there is nothing like bankruptcy to make you focus. I would be surprised if B&M has $120M in covereage and even more surprised if the partners want to take money of of their pockets to fund a settlement....probably just take their chances on appeal.
This is a quote from B&M's website:
"Every day our more than 3,750 lawyers, economists, tax advisors and other professionals share insights and best practices across borders and practices. We speak more than 75 languages and represent more than 55 nationalities, and the close relationships among our people fosters the trust needed to develop and deliver world-class solutions to multinational clients.
We share an uncompromising commitment to excellence, which explains why more of our lawyers are included as leading lawyers in the Chambers Global Guide to the World’s Best Lawyers than any other Global 20 law firm."
By my count they have offices in 39 countries. It's inconceivable to me that their liability coverage is less than $100 million. A firm like that is in cases and deals all the time where they have more exposure than that if they scew up. Not to mention the message that would send to clients and the leverage that it would give to competitors.
I think settlement is advisable just to get this matter dismissed and to avoid the possibility of a unanimous MSSC opinion that B&M is a stable full of crooks.
Free legal advice, but given the att'y fees cited in the post, B&M should be craving some free legal advice.
Maybe so Philip, but there are many companies with larger exposure and many more employees that dont have even close to $100M in liability coverage. I expect the plaintiffs' lawyers know.
You got me on that one Randy.
Anderson, do you mean "a stable full of crooks" like Eaton Corp's legal team?