« Ind. Decisions - Judge Barker rejects fired teacher's claim | Main | Ind. Law - More on: Home sellers lose with this new law »
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Law - Those fighting over wine fees include Indiana law professor
Thanks to How Appealing, here is a link to a story in the Sacromento Bee headlined "Money fight follows wine victory: Winning lawyers in Supreme Court case battle over their fees." Some quotes:
WASHINGTON - A legal triumph for California wineries has soured into a nasty wrangle among lawyers, as one-time allies turn their courtroom claws on one another.Last year, the lawyers persuaded the Supreme Court to remove barriers blocking interstate wine shipments. This year, teammates no more, these same lawyers have battled with increasing vitriol over hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees.
"Nothing like money to make people fight, I guess," James Tanford, a professor at Indiana University School of Law, said Tuesday.
Tanford and his partners are seeking nearly $1.2 million, after prevailing in the wine direct-shipment case that took more than six years to resolve. Separately, the law firm Kirkland and Ellis asked for $329,000.
Today, the state of Michigan could announce an agreement over at least some of the disputed fees. "We are still negotiating with the firms," Nate Bailey, spokesman for the attorney general's office, said Tuesday.
But the fight unfolding in federal court in Michigan is about more than money. Personal reputations are also at stake. Already, the dispute has shed light on some of the legal profession's dark corners: the magic of billable hours, the maneuverings of well-known lawyers and the high price of victory at the Supreme Court. * * *
Until now, though, the arguments have just kept getting sharper. Tanford's former allies at Kirkland and Ellis, for instance, now characterize Tanford as embittered because former Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan was chosen instead of him to make the high-profile oral argument before the Supreme Court in December 2004.
"Never able to accept his diminished status in the Supreme Court proceedings, Mr. Tanford now seeks to elevate his role well beyond what his performance merited," Kirkland and Ellis declared in a Dec. 28, 2005, brief. "Unfortunately, Mr. Tanford's desire for unwarranted recognition comes at the expense of K&E, the law firm primarily responsible for the Supreme Court victory."
"I would have liked to have made the arguments," acknowledged Tanford, who ended up assisting Sullivan during the hourlong sessions, "but it was a decision made by our clients. There was a lot at stake, and it made the clients feel a little more comfortable."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 22, 2006 12:41 PM
Posted to General Law Related