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."

Comments

Objection: misleading the jury

[Statecraftsman]

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.

This is great stuff

[phantomfive]

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!!

Re:This is great stuff

[darkmeridian]

When attorneys realize that they're seeking costs, they tend to ask for billed hours that they normally would write off. The hours were actually expended, but usually are not billed to keep the client happy. If you have a shot at having your opponent foot the bill, you do not write those off. The court normally reduces them. Of course, it should go from $114K to $68K so I guess someone really padded the bill.

Re:This is great stuff

[phantomfive]

The bill and the justification are available online:

The Bill
The Justification

Interesting reading.
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!!

Re:This is great stuff

[mr_matticus]

Not really. That's a fairly modestly-priced lawyer. It's expensive to be in the legal profession--between malpractice insurance, bar membership, various subscriptions to legal services, and everything else, it can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year just to be an attorney. That doesn't even factor in the operating costs of the business (rent, utilities, supplies, voice/data services, etc.) which of course are themselves in the tens of thousands of dollars for just a small firm. I'm not saying that lawyers on the whole are struggling financially, but that $225 an hour is nowhere near raw profit. What it is is extremely high revenue.

If you took your company's (assume you work for a company that doesn't manufacture anything for the moment) annual revenue and divided it by the number of employees, it would work out to a staggering hourly rate. Obviously that doesn't all go into your pocket. Same with lawyers. The hourly rate (and the percentage cuts from awards) are a law firm's *sole* source of income. It's not directly comparable to the hourly rate you get paid at your job.

Further, what seems to be a good windfall more often than not ends up covering debt from a pro bono case somewhere else. Lawyers take on massive debts to argue cases with the hope that they'll get paid. It's hardly a guarantee. Chasing down clients for money they still owe is something every lawyer is familiar with. That's why big wins are celebrated--it's what creates the "rich lawyer." Most cases, including this one, are nothing spectacular, but they're enough to encourage lawyers to take the risk, now that this gate is open.

Re:This is great stuff

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Actually there was a huge amount of work which Ms. Foster's attorney had to do after the initial, February 6th, decision, due to innumerable motions and other dilatory tactics by the RIAA. Just look at some of the litigation documents (and this list was very selective) in my folder for Capitol v. Foster. I was really shocked by the Judge's knocking Ms. Barringer-Thomson's bill down so far; she did not deserve that. My best guess is that he was trying to protect the record against any kind of appeal from the RIAA.

Despite my disappointment at the amount awarded, an attorneys fee award against the RIAA for more than $68,000 is a very important precedent, one which
-is being taken very seriously by the RIAA, albeit with a slight sigh of relief, and
-is being noticed by lawyers and litigants across the country, as a sign of encouragement to stand and fight.

Re:This is great stuff

[PMBjornerud]

Just wondering,

If the defendant ended up with huge expenses even when winning, could this be used in some form of racketeering lawsuit against the RIAA?

As in "Give us $3000 or we'll sue. Then, even if you win it will cost you ten times more than that."

It's obvious that they're not suing people for money, but to create a public image of it being dangerous to cross them.

Re:a sad day

[MLease]

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

Overzealous lawyers?

[achurch]

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.

Ouch for the defense lawyers

[deblau]

You should know something before you go congratulating Debbie Foster's lawyers for a job well done. The opinion slams them pretty hard.

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.

Surgeon's fees

[wwood_98]

It's interesting to stop and think what the doctor who takes out your appendix earns in an hour. If it happens to be an uncomplicated operation, an appendectomy might take me 45min best case. It could take 2 hours. I would say it takes at least an hour (at shortest) before the operation starts to examine / interview the patient, get informed consent, evaluate labs, imaging studies. Then there is postoperative care of the patient in the hospital as well as follow-up visits to the clinic later.

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.