Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, the RIAA has been directed to pay the defendant $68,685.23 in attorneys fees. This is the first instance of which I am aware of the RIAA being ordered to pay the defendant attorneys fees. The judge in this case has criticized the RIAA's lawyers' motives as 'questionable,' and their legal theories as 'marginal' (PDF). Although the judge had previously ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, today's decision (PDF) made no mention of the amount that the RIAA had spent on its own lawyers."
The summary is mis-leading the reader as it makes it seem like all fees are paid for by the RIAA and the defendant got off untouched. Depending on how solid her fees were, it could still end very badly for the defendant. If her stated fees are actually due, this judgement will still cost her about $46k which doesn't sound like much of a victory to me.
The first thing I wondered was, what on earth do the lawyers do that cost this much? First she requested $55,000 for lawyer fees, which the court gave her. The RIAA complained that it wasn't reasonable, and of course since her lawyer had to work extra to deal with that request, they raised the bill to $114K. This includes $225/hr for the lawyer, $100/hr for the paralegals, and 8 cents a page for copies. Apparently the court thought this was a bit high because they reduced it down to $68,685.23. Still, I'm sure it's quite a win for the lawyer.
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!!
Qxe4
Sigh.... I know I'm feeding a troll, but I can't seem to help myself today. I haven't downloaded a single tune in my life (I'm 49). I like classical music for the most part, and have a decent CD collection of my favorites; I also like some contemporary music, and have a few CDs of that nature, as well. I just never really got into downloading tunes; I don't expect them to sound great on my computer, and I don't have any players or whatever.
However, I do think that the RIAA and the companies which comprise it are being vicious, vindictive and petty in their approach. I think they are going after people who can't afford to defend themselves and trying to bankrupt them, merely to scare others away from "piracy". They don't care whether their victims are actually guilty of any wrongdoing; they're counting on the fact that they can throw expensive lawyers and "expert" witnesses at them, and that the victims can't afford to fight, regardless of their actual liability in the matter.
I don't "steal" music, but I don't buy it anymore, either. I listen to what I already have, or I turn on the radio (I know, that does indirectly support them; but then, I can't remember ever buying anything as the result of a radio ad). I think the music industry as it exists now does not deserve the support of my dollars, and they're not going to get it.
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Judging from the decision, it looks like the defendant may have been overcharged by her lawyers, in the sense of being billed for more time than was reasonable. The judge makes several disparaging remarks about the defense lawyers block-billing time rather than keeping accurate records of exactly how much time was spent doing what, and about "almost frenetic" activity once they knew they would be recovering costs.
She asked for over $114,000 but the court only gave her about $68,000, because her lawyers charged too much. For example, the "docket in this case is replete with the defendant's supplemental and corrective filings designed to cure defects in motions and responses that should have been complete and correct when originally filed." (page 8). In other words, her lawyers screwed up, and had to fix their mistakes at her expense. Also, once they learned that she was the winner and their bills would be paid, they started "frenetic activity" which they billed her for. (page 9). Also, they nickel-and-dimed her to the tune of about $1,500 on things like copy and fax costs (they charged $1.50 per fax page, where the court found $0.20 to be "generous"). (page 13).
Ouch.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
FWIW, what entry-level lawyers bill and what entry-level lawyers make are two very different numbers.
Similarly, it isn't too uncommon for big consulting houses and their competition at the big corps like IBM and HP to bill average-level engineers at $300/hr to the clients but pay them about a fifth of that as a regular salary. That's one reason this AC went independent, now I bill 10% less than IBM does but take home 90% of that (10% goes to expenses) instead of only 20% of $300.
It should of course come from the lawyer, who does it at a personal loss.
Of course, all the the lawyer's money comes from billing clients. Therefore, if the lawyer is to take on pro bono work, and maintain his standard of living, he must charge his paying clients a higher hourly rate and make a greater marginal profit from those clients.
It's not fraud because his paying clients are told his hourly rate in advance and agree to pay it. A reasonable person understands that the hourly rate is not the lawyer's personal salary, in the same way we understand that a machine or auto shop's hourly rate is not the mechanic's hourly wage, but includes the cost of facilities, administration, and other hard-to-specify costs. Can you imagine how complicated the bill for an oil change would be if they had to detail out depreciation on every tool, lease on the site, time of each employee from the mechanic to the cashier, electricity for the 'complimentary' coffee maker, for the cash register, and for each light bulb?
You can claim that, as a computer consultant, you don't charge your paying customers more for doing charity work, but it's not really true. It's likely that the costs (to you) of setting up computers and networking are relatively small-a few tools, periodic training, maybe even a small storefront. Amortized over the lifetime of the tool or certification, it may even be vanishingly small (eg, a $5000 network analyzer, amortized over a 5 year lifetime costs $0.50/hr). Whether you consider the cost of charity work to be paid by you "at a personal loss" or by your other clients paying a higher rate, the distinction is only at what point in the history of a particular dollar you consider it to be "yours," "the business's," or "the client's."
As a surgeon, Medicare reimburses a $482.62 "global fee" for a laparoscopic appendectomy in my area (there are no provisions for charging "by the hour.". So it's tough to say how much I make in an hour. But I'd say it is safely below these "reasonable attorney's fees." Not to whine here. I'm not starving.
And FYI, after high school: 4yrs undergrad, 4 yrs med school, 5 yrs surgical residency.
I work for a "big 4" firm, doing mostly technology consulting type stuff (Data-based forensic accounting).
My official rate is $425/hr. That is usually discounted unless a client has gotten themselves in big trouble.
And yea, $billed != $made. Not even close.
I'm a lawyer. It's likely (almost guaranteed) that her lawyers will call it quits at $68k. Lawyers regularly write time (revenue) off for all sorts of things and although they will have given chapter and verse for the Court, they'll happily take a lower number. You always shoot high in these things - you're not being dishonest (you can prove what work you did) but *in reality* usual practice is to write off or not charge for every little thing that you do. When you think the other sides going to be paying for it though, you ask.
Many a truth said in jest :-) However, yes; well actually I'm a security trained reasonably qualified IP network expert; but you have no reason to know that. Even if you did know me I'm not someone with a public name that could be useful to you. I instead always give analysis with links to the original sources of information so that the lawyers don't need to do stupid things like calling me up to the stand from far away yurp :-)