Declaration

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 30, 2018

hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 180V338652 Santa Clara - Civil WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC Robin G. Workman (Bar #145810) robin@workmanlawpc.com 177 Post Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 Facsimile: (415) 788-1028 Attorneysfor Plaintifif Alfred Lax 0n behalfofhimselfand all others similarly situated Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 2/1/2021 4:48 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #1 8CV338652 Envelope: 5755627 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALFRED LAX, on behalf 0f himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -1- N0. 18CV33 8652 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE HON. SUNIL R. KULKARNI, DEPT. 1 DECLARATION 0F ROBIN G. WORKMAN IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 0F CLASS SETTLEMENT; APPROVING REQUEST FOR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FEE; APPROVING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; AND, APPROVING REQUEST FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARD T0 PLAINTIFF ALFRED LAX DATE: February 25, 2021 TIME: 1:30 pm DEPT: 1 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A: EXHIBIT B: EXHIBIT C: EXHIBIT D: EXHIBIT E: EXHIBIT F: EXHIBIT G: EXHIBIT H: EXHIBIT I: EXHIBIT J: INDEX OF EXHIBITS Notice t0 the LWDA 0f the proposed settlement in this matter Laffey Matrix January 13, 2014, National Law Journal article entitled “$1,000 Per Hour Isn't Rare Anymore; Nominal billing levels rise, but discounts ease blow” Article entitled “On Sale: The $1,150-Per Hour Lawyer” Declaration of Richard M. Pearl Declaration 0f Matthew Righetti National Law Journal 2008 survey 0f rates Article entitled “Going Rate” from the April 8, 2013 edition 0f The Recorder Workman Law Firm Invoice November 23, 2020, Preliminary Approval Order DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -2- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Robin G. Workman, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed t0 practice before all the courts of the State 0f California, and am principal owner 0f the Workman Law Firm, PC, attorneys 0f record herein for Plaintiff Alfred Lax. The following is based 0n my personal knowledge, and if called upon t0 d0 so, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On March 2, 2020, my office gave notice t0 the LWDA 0f the proposed settlement in this matter. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy 0f confirmation 0f that submittal. To date, my office has not received any comment from the LWDA regarding the settlement. 3. As outlined in the preliminary approval motion, before both 0f the mediations, my office conducted significant investigation 0f the facts and law. This investigation included interviews with class members and potential witnesses. My office also served formal discovery 0n Defendant in the form 0f inspection demands, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and request for admissions. E, Request for Judicial Notice 1] 2, Exs. D-J. My office also engaged in informal discovery With Defendant Roto-Rooter Services Company. My office’s discovery and investigation included, but was not limited to, review and analysis 0f the Defendant’s policies and procedures, time and payroll records, and review and analysis 0f employment records. My office also investigated the applicable law as applied t0 the facts discovered regarding Mr. LaX’s claims, the defenses thereto, and the damages and penalties claimed by Mr. Lax in the Action. Defense counsel did the same. The Parties exchanged extensive data and information regarding the Class claims, including data relevant t0 damages and the Parties’ legal theories and defenses. My office also retained an expert, Berger Consulting Group (“Berger”), to analyze the data and calculate the potential exposure for the alleged claims. This exchange 0f information allowed the parties t0 assess the merits and value of Plaintiff s claims and defenses thereto, if a settlement was not reached. After conducting an analysis of the materials Defendant produced, I also drew on my experience in similar cases t0 assess the strengths and weaknesses 0f Plaintiffs claims. DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -3- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. On November 5, 2019, the Parties attended and participated in good faith, arms’ length, all-day mediation before Mediator David A. Rotman (“Mediator”) in an attempt to resolve the claims alleged in the complaint. The Parties were not able to reach an agreement at this mediation. The Parties continued settlement efforts and participated in a second mediation 0n May 27, 2020. Although the Parties still were not able t0 reach an agreement at the second mediation, the Parties continued to negotiate informally and eventually reached a settlement and memorialized the terms of that settlement in a formal settlement agreement (the “Settlement”). The Parties believe and agree that this Settlement is a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution 0f this matter and arrived at this Settlement in arms-length negotiations, taking into account all relevant factors, present and potential, each side recognizing the risks 0f an adverse result should litigation continue. The mediations, and subsequent negotiations regarding the terms of the formal settlement documents, while professional, were adversarial. It was only through the efforts 0f Mediator Rotman that the parties were able t0 reach a settlement. 5. The terms 0f the Settlement do not provide a basis to doubt its fairness. Those Who will receive benefits under the Settlement, i.e., the Settlement Class, are all current and former non-exempt technicians employed by Defendant in its Menlo Park and Bristol locations (134 technicians), from November 30, 2014, through the date 0f Preliminary Approval 0f the class action settlement and who d0 not exclude themselves from the Settlement. Members 0f the Class are referred t0 herein as “Class Members” or “Settlement Class Members.” 6. The Settlement does not have a reversionary component and the class members are not required t0 submit a claim form. Pursuant t0 the agreed terms, the Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) that Defendant is obligated t0 pay under the Settlement is Two Million, Five Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand Dollars ($2,598,000). After deducting payment for attorneys’ fees ($825,000) and costs ($22,888.03), PAGA ($37,500), administration fees ($15,000) and enhancement payment ($20,000) from the total settlement, approximately $1,677,612, shall be available for distribution t0 Participating Class Members. Pursuant t0 the settlement, the average amount class members Will receive is approximately $12,5 19, With the greatest recovery being approximately $53,823. DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -4- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. The Individual Settlement Payments are based 0n each Settlement Class Member’s “Qualifying Workweeks.” The Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., Will allocate the Individual Settlement Payments t0 the Class Members. The Individual Settlement Payment is calculated by dividing the number of Qualifying Workweeks worked by the Settlement Class Member by the aggregate number 0f Qualifying Workweeks for the entire Class, and multiplying the resulting percentage by the value of the Net Settlement Fund. Rust Will determine each Class Member’s Qualifying Workweeks by reference to the Defendant’s records. In my opinion, the weighting 0f individual settlements based on workweeks is fair and reasonable, as this gives the participating Class Members who worked more weeks a greater percentage of the Settlement. 8. The result achieved is excellent, as it results in a change 0f Defendant’s policies and results in significant compensation t0 the class members. Also, the Settlement provides for payment t0 the class members now, rather than a speculative payment years from now. Defendant denies all of the claims and allegations in the Complaint. Defendant denies that it engaged in any illegal conduct whatsoever. If the litigation continued and the class prevailed at trial, payment would occur at some time in the future, as Defendant would n0 doubt appeal any adverse judgment. The Court 0f Appeal could disagree with a certification decision, or any part 0f a potential judgment. If the Court 0f Appeal accepted any 0f Defendant’s arguments 0f error and overturned any part 0f the judgment, it could remand the matter t0 the trial court for further proceedings that, again, could last indefinitely, including yet another appeal. This delay and the risks inherent in continued litigation and the appellate process, led Mr. Lax and I t0 conclude that reaching this resolution is the best course 0f action. 9. The results achieved for the class, and the benefits that Will inure t0 all technicians in the future, arise from the efforts 0fmy firm. To prosecute this case, my firm conducted investigation and had many meetings With Mr. Lax and other class members. We filed administrative exhaustion materials, the complaints, and further materials with the Court. We prepared discovery and engaged in the exchange and review 0f documents and data, retained an expert, and worked with the expert t0 prepare damage calculations, so that we understood the DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -5- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 potential value of all claims. We prepared extensive mediation briefs, participated in two mediations, and engaged in further negotiations With the mediator and defense counsel to prepare formal settlement documents. We filed many submissions With the Court t0 obtain preliminary approval of the settlement, and worked with the Claims Administrator to assure that notice was properly disseminated t0 the class. We Will prepare and file the final approval motions, and accompanying documents. If the Court grants final approval 0f the settlement, we Will continue to work with the Claims Administrator and respond t0 any questions that class members may have regarding the process. T0 do this work, my firm spent n0 less than 595.56 attorney and paralegal hours. The hours spent are reasonable When compared to the tasks performed and the results achieved. Below is a summary of the hours worked and rates charged by my firm for a lodestar of $352,183.25. Name Hours Rate Pre-multiplierM Robin G. Workman 377.55 $750 $283, 1 62.50 (30-year attorney) Rachel E. Davey 145.25 $375 $54,468.75 (2-year attorney) Cheryl Porter 69.76 $200 $ 1 3,952.00 (2-year paralegal) Jonda Miller 3.00 $200 $600.00 (10-year paralegal) TOTALS: 595.56 $352,183.25 10. I took this case 0n a contingency basis, at my own expense. A private law practice such as that ofmy firm can only properly litigate a limited number of cases at one time. The professional demands 0f this case were significant, requiring 595.56 hours of attorney and paralegal time. This litigation precluded my firm from other employment due to the time and financial commitments required by the case. Though more than one attorney worked on the case, the hours are neither unreasonable nor duplicative. DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -6- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. The 33% in attorneys’ fees requested by my firm is an amount both federal and state courts routinely award both the Workman Law Firm, PC and also Qualls & Workman LLP, the predecessor firm to Workman Law Firm, PC. In Davis, et a1 V. WeDriveU, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 18CV322578 (order filed November 19, 2019) and Tuifua V. FS Palo Alto Employment, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 18CV322009, this Court awarded 33% 0f the common fund as a fee award in rest and meal period and overtime cases. Other courts are in accord. See, Byrd V. Autotrader Publishing, et a1., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC 07-463062 (order filed March 21, 2008) (33% 0f settlement that occurred before depositions were taken); Dudash V. Vamell Struck, et a1., Garnica V. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, et a1., Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No. D1264187 (order filed August 20, 2008) (33% awarded in an overtime and meal period case); Tate V. Kaiser, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG07318416 (order filed November 24, 2009) (awarding 33% in an overtime/meal and rest period case); Bufil V. Dollar Financial Group, Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-O6-456053 (order filed March 11, 2010) (33% award in meal period case); Hennessev V. Greyhound Lines, Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-09-484924 (order filed March 11, 201 1) (33% awarded in meal and rest period, reimbursement case); Amezquita V. Classic Beverage and Distributing Group, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case N0. BC412216 (order filed May 17, 2012) (awarding 33% in an overtime and reimbursement case); Nolan V. Kayo Oil, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-497445 (order filed April 12, 2013) (awarding 45% in a rest and meal period and overtime case); Morris V. Liquidagents, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG12638618 (order filed August 30, 2013) (33% in overtime and meal period case); Martin V. Kasel Enterprises, et al., Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. RIC12 1 0121 (order filed October 28, 20 1 3) (35% awarded in reimbursement case); Vega V. Sensient Dehydrated Flavors, LLC, Stanislaus County Superior Court, Case N0. 684568 (order filed March 18, 2014) (awarding 33% in a meal period case); LaBoV V. Bare Escentuals, Inc. et a1, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG12638047 (order filed December 11, 2014) (33% awarded in overtime, reimbursement case); Otts V. C.O.M.P.A.S.S., Alameda DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -7- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 County Superior Court, Case No. RG1 1591441 (order filed January 9, 2015) (33% in a reimbursement case settlement); Battle V. Charming Charlie, San Diego Superior Court, Case N0. 37-2014-00005608 (order filed September 25, 2015) (33% awarded in overtime case); Frederick V. ACE, Riverside County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-09-487345 (Order filed June 17, 2016)(33% in expense reimbursement case); Garnett V. ADT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84006 (Order filed June 28, 1016)(33% in a wage statement and reimbursement case); Young V. World Courier Ground, Inc., et a1., Alameda County Court Case Number RG1683 141 (Order filed May 26, 2017)(33% in a rest and meal period and inaccurate wage statement case); McCormack V. WinCo Holdings, Inc., Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 1200516 (Order filed August 21, 2017)(33% in a seating Violation case); Rvpka V. Volume Snacks, Inc., et a1., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2015-00184135 (Order filed December 5, 2017)(33% in a PAGA claims settlement); Alcantar V. Hobart Service, Case No. EDCVI 1-1600- PSG (order filed August 13, 2018)(33% common fund fee award); Davis, et a1 V. WeDriveU, m, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV322578 (order filed November 19, 2019) (33% in an overtime case), Wade V. Automobile Club of Southern California, et a1., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00960268-CU-OE-CXC (order filed Feb. 7, 2020) (33% awarded in seating case); Villareal V. Mission Trail, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV338479 (order filed July 10, 2020) (33% in meal and rest break case); Tuifua V. FS Palo Alto Employment, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 18CV322009 (Order filed August 21, 2020) (33% in a rest and meal period and overtime case); MV Transportation Wage and Hour Cases, San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case N0. JCCP 4993 (order filed October 10, 2020) (33% awarded in wage and hour class action); andm Good Eggs, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-18-569499 (order filed December 15, 2020) (33% in rest/meal break, overtime and reimbursement case). 12. The attomeys’ fee awards awarded t0 my firms have been consistent With those routinely awarded by the California superior courts. California superior courts frequently grant common fund fee awards 0f 33%. m, gg, Ochoa V. Haralambos Beverage Co., N0. BC319588 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, Feb. 1, 2007) (33.3% fee award With no mention 0f DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -8- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 lodestar crosscheck); Garcia V. Save Mart Supermarkets, N0. 3 12026 (Super. Ct., Stanislaus County, Aug. 3, 2004) (33% fee award with no mention 0f lodestar crosscheck); Terrell V. Ocean’s 11 Casino, Inc., N0. GIC795732 (Super. Ct., San Diego County, Feb. 10, 2004) (approving 33% fee award); Big Lots Overtime Cases, JCC Proceeding N0. 4283, San Bernardino County Superior Court, Feb 4, 2004) (approving a 33% fee recovery); Tokar V. GEICO, (San Diego Superior Court, N0. GIC 810166, July 9, 2004) (approving award 0f 33- 1/3%); Davis V. The Money Store, Inc., (San Diego County Superior Court, N0. 99ASOl716, December 26 2000) (33-13% of the settlement). 13. Federal courts are also in accord. In Cicero V. DirecTV, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86920, at *17-18, the court explained that a review of California cases in other districts reveals that courts usually award attorneys’ fees in the 30-40% range in wage and hour class actions that result in recovery 0f a common fun under $10 million. m Vasquez V. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482, 491-92 (E.D. Ca. 2010) (citing t0 five recent wage and hour class actions Where federal district courts approved attorney fee awards ranging from 30 to 33%); Singer V. Becton Dickinson & C0., N0. 08-CV-821-IEG (BLM), 2010 WL 2196104, at *8 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2010) (approving attorney fee award of 33.33% of the common fund and holding that award was similar t0 awards in three other wage and hour class action cases Where fees ranged from 30.3% to 40%); Romero V. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86270, 2007 WL 3492841 (E.D. Ca. Nov. 14, 2007)( attorneys’ fees of one-third (1/3) the settlement amount); W00 V. Home Loan Group, L.P., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65144 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2008)(awarded 33% of the fund); Barbosa V. Cargill Meal Solutions Com, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93194 (E.D. Ca. July 1, 2013) (1/3 of fund); Van Vranken, supra, 901 F.Supp. at 297-298 (“cited 73 opinions in Which fees in the range of 30-50 percent 0f the common fund were awarded”); In Re Pacific Enter. Sec. Litig, 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1995) (33% fee award); Williams V. MGM-Pathe Communications C0., 129 F.3d 1026, 1027 (9th Cir. 1997) (33% of total fund awarded); In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25067, *57, *58 (D.D.C. July 16, 2001) (34.06% 0f $365 million recovery). DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -9- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. Numerous courts awarded attorneys’ fees ofup to, 0r in excess of40% of the common fund. Ammari Electronics, et a1. V. Pacific Bell Directory, Alameda County Sup. Ct., Case N0. RG05198014 (awarded 43.8%) (2015); In re California Indirect Purchaser X Ray Film Antitrust Litigation, San Francisco Sup. Ct. 1998 (citing Abzug V. Kerkorian, Los Angeles Sup. CL, NOV. 19, 1990, Case No. CA-00981 (45%) and Haitz V. Meyer, Alameda County Sup. Ct., August 20, 1990, Case No. 5729683 (45%)); Zinman V. Avenco Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1978) (50%); I_n re Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation, 526 F. Supp. 494, 499 (D.D.C. 1981) (45%); Hall V. Cinema 7, Inc., San Francisco Sup. Ct., July 16, 2008, Case N0. CGC-01-409105 (53%); Rundberg V. Intrawest Nana Dev. C0., Napa County Sup. Ct., January 15, 2014, Case No. 26-56886 (40%); Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers Local 234 V. The Ryan C0,, 1110., Monterey County Sup. Ct., Apr. 8, 201 1, Case N0. M87384 (40%); Williams V. Costco Wholesale Com, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67731, *17 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2010) (typical range 0f fee award between 20-50%, citing Birch V. Office Depot, 1110., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102747, Docket N0. 48 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007) (awarded 40%) and Rippee V. Boston Mkt. Com, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101 136, *11 (SD. Cal. Oct. 10, 2006) (same)); Howes V. Atkins, 668 F. Supp. 1021 (ED. Ky. 1987) (same). 15. I seek $750 per hour for my hourly rate, $375 per hour for Ms. Davey, and $200 per hour for my paralegals, Cheryl Porter, who has worked for me as a paralegal for almost 25 years and Jonda Miller, Who has worked for me as a paralegal for almost 10 years. Many Courts throughout California have approved my firm’s hourly rates, including this Court in Davis et a1 V. WeDriveU, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 18CV322578 (order filed November 19, 2019) and Tuifua V. FS Palo Alto Employment, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV32200. Since 2012, Courts have approved my firm’s hourly rates in the following cases: Manulevu, et a1. V. Professional Security Consultants, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case N0. BC409603 (order filed May 16, 2012); Amezquita V. Classic Beverage and Distributing Group, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC412216 (order filed May 17, 2012); Young V. World Courier Ground, Inc., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG1 1603420 (order filed August 2, 2012); Nolan V. Kayo Oil, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-10-497445 (order filed April 12, 2013); Hall V. O.C. Jones & DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -10- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sons Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-12-523668 (order filed May 10, 2013); Cooper, et a1. V. Eastwestproto, Inc., et 211., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30- 2012-00552236-CU-OE-CXC (order filed August 26, 2013); Bunton V. Sephora, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-10-497025 (order filed August 30, 2013); Morris V. Liguidagents, Alameda County Superior Court, Case N0. RG12638618 (order filed August 30, 2013); Martin V. Kasel Enterprises, et a1., Riverside County Superior Court, Case N0. RIC1210121 (order filed October 28, 2013); Vega V. Sensient Dehydrated Flavors, LLC, Stanislaus County Superior Court, Case No. 684568 (order filed March 18, 2014); Ambrus V. ACE Security, Riverside County Superior Court, Case N0. RIC1303852 (order filed November 14, 2014); LaBoV V. Bare Escentuals, Inc., et a1., Alameda County Superior Court, Case N0. RG12638047 (order filed December 11, 2014); Stokes V. CSE Holdings, Inc., et al., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-13-530640 (order filed on December 15, 2014); Otts V. C.O.M.P.A.S.S., Alameda County Superior Court, Case N0. RG1 1591441 (order filed January 9, 2015); Allen V. UtiliQuest, LLC, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-12-525644 (order filed Feb. 6, 2015); Stokes V. Interline, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-12-523274 (order filed April 6, 2015); Battle V. Charming Charlie, San Diego Superior Court, Case N0. 37-2014-00005608 (order filed September 25, 2015); York Wage and Hour Class Actions, Sacramento County Superior Court Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding N0. 4560 (order filed May 27, 2015); Kissinger V. Foot Locker, San Francisco County Superior Court Case N0. CGC-09-487345 (order filed March 24, 2016); Fredrick V. ACE, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1505009 (order filed June 17, 2016); Garnett V. ADT, USDC Eastern District 0f California Case No. 2: 14-CV-285 1 WBS (order filed June 28, 2016) ; Murphy V. Care lst Health Plan, Alameda County Superior Court Case N0. RG15784123 (order filed January 13, 1027); Robinson, et a1. V. Energy Remodeling, Inc., et 211., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 115CV287674 (order filed March 24, 2017); Schuett V. ALLDATA, LLC, Alameda County Superior Court Case N0. RG15765228 (order filed April 7, 2017); Young V. World Courier Ground, Inc., et a1., Alameda County Court Case Number RG1683 141 (Order filed May 26, 2017); McCormack V. WinCo Holdings, Inc., Riverside Superior Court Case No. DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -1 1- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RIC 1200516 (Order filed August 21, 2017); Rvpka V. Volume Snacks, Inc., et a1., Sacramento County Superior Court Case N0. 34-2015-00184135 (Order filed December 5, 2017); Alcantar V. Hobart, et a1., USDC Eastern District Court Case N0. ED CV1 1-01600 PSG SP (Order filed August 13, 2018); In re York Wage and Hour Class Actions, Sacramento County Superior Court Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding N0. 4560 (Order filed November 13, 2018); Williams, et a1. V. ETC Institute, et a1., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-17-563308 (Order filed February 19, 2019); Cortez, et a1. V. United Natural Foods, Inc., et a1., USDC Northern District Case No. 5:18-cv-O4603-BLF (Order filed October 4, 2019); and, Davis et a1 V. WeDriveU Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 18CV322578 (order filed November 19, 2019); Tuifua V. FS Palo Alto Employment, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 18CV322009 (order filed August 21, 2020); and, Anderson V. The Sherwin- Williams Company, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District 0f California Case N0. ED CV 17-2459 FMO (SHKX) (order filed October 23, 2020). 16. The Workman Law Firm, PC is well qualified t0 act as counsel in this case and the rates for Which I charge for attorney time are reasonable, given my experience and the experience 0f those who worked on this case. I graduated from Texas Tech School 0fLaw in 1989, after which I clerked for the Honorable Jack Hightower 0f the Texas Supreme Court. I then worked as an associate for the international firms of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal (currently SNR Denton) and Russin & Vecchi. I started my predecessor firm, Qualls & Workman, LLP, in 1996, and my current firm, Workman Law Firm, PC, in 2014. At both firms, my practice has specialized in prosecuting wage and hour class action litigation. Rachel Davey graduated from the University 0f San Francisco School ofLaw in 2016 and was admitted to the California Bar in 2017. At my firm, Ms. Davey’s focus has been on the prosecution ofwage and hour class action litigation and other employment litigation. We seek $375 per hour for Ms. Davey, and $200 per hour for my paralegals, Cheryl Porter and Jonda Miller. The requested hourly rates are reasonable and customary for the community, as reflected by the California courts, including this Court, that approved these rates. 17. I routinely represent clients With respect to issues involving California employment DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -12- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 law before both the California Courts of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit. My firms have represented many employees 0n appeal, resulting in numerous favorable appellate court decisions that are important in wage and hour class action law. These decisions include: a) Oliver V. Konica Minolta Bus. Sols. U.S.A., Inc., 51 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2020)(addressing the compensability 0f drive time by employees); b) Alcantar V. Hobart, 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (addressing standards for both summary judgment and also class certification in federal court); c) Reyes V. Macy’s, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1119 (201 1) (determining that an order granting a motion t0 compel arbitration 0f individual claims, While staying class claims, is not an appealable order); d) Kullar V. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2008) (articulating the standards courts must consider When determining if a class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable); e) Kullar V. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1201 (201 1) (addressing questions 0f conflicts 0f interest and disqualification in the context 0f obj ectors t0 class action settlements); and, f) Bufil V. Dollar Financial Group, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1193 (2008) (addressing concepts 0f collateral estoppel in the context of class actions). 18. In May 0f 2014, I tried a wage and hour class action t0 decision in York Claims Service Wage and Hour Cases, Sacramento County Superior Court Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding N0. 4560 (order filed May 27, 2015), obtaining an eight-figure judgment. 19. Because 0fmy experience, I frequently am invited t0 speak on class action and wage-and-hour employment issues. Recently, I spoke at seminars offered by the Practicing Law Institute and Bridgeport Legal Education. I also was on the panel for the Complex Civil Litigation Symposium for Northern California. Iroutinely speak t0 law students 0n employment law issues at both Hastings Law School and University of San Francisco Law School. Ihave been selected for the Northern California Super Lawyers list from 2013-2020, and named one 0f DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -13- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Top Women Attorneys for Employment Litigation in Northern California, an honor reserved for those lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 5% 0f attorneys in Northern California receive this distinction. 20. Various obj ective sources confirm the reasonableness ofmy firm’s hourly rates. The Laffey Matrix is a pre-fixed formula used by federal courts t0 determine reasonable hourly rates. Rubenstein, 5 Newberg 0n Class Actions, § 15:43, p. 148 (5th Ed. 2015). The Laffey Matrix establishes the reasonableness ofmy firm’s hourly rates. A true and correct copy 0f the Laffey Matrix is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Matrix reflects partners” rates With experience commiserate t0 my years of experience as billing upwards of $899 per hour. The Matrix also reflects third-year associates’ rates 0f $372 per hour and paralegal rates 0f up t0 $200 per hour as reasonable. In the 10-year period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2014, the term “Laffey matrix” appears in 627 reported federal cases 0n Westlaw. 21. In a January 13, 2014, article published by the National Law Journal titled “1,000 Per Hour Isn’t Rare Anymore,” Karen Sloan, the author, lists the rates of partners at firms in major metropolitan areas, including San Francisco. The partner and associate rates reflected in the article exceed those sought by my firm. A true and correct copy 0f that article is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 22. In an article entitled “On Sale: The $1,150-Per Hour Lawyer,” written by Jennifer Smith and published in the Wall Street Journal 0n April 9, 2013, the author describes the rapidly growing number 0f lawyers billing at $1,150 0r more revealed in public filings and maj0r surveys. A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The article also notes that in the first quarter 0f 2013, the 50 top-grossing law firms billed their partners at an average rate between $879 and $882 per hour. 23. Attached hereto as Exhibits E and F are true and correct copies 0f the Declarations 0f Richard M. Pearl and Matthew Righetti filed in the matter 0f In re York Wage and Hour Class Actions, Sacramento County Superior Court Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding N0. 4560 in support of Plaintiff Lonnetta Williams’ and Roshon Green’s Application for Common Fund Attorney Fees and Expenses and Class Representative Enhancement Payment DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -14- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and Application For Statutory Attorneys’ Fees. These declarations further establish the reasonableness 0f the hourly rates requested. 24. The National Law Journal’s 2008 survey 0f rates charged by firms in the nation for both partners and associates establishes the reasonableness 0fmy firm’s hourly rates, a true and correct copy 0f which is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The survey reflects partners’ rates ranging up t0 $1,260 per hour and associates’ rates ranging up to $920 per hour. 25. A survey by The Recorder also establishes the reasonableness of the rates requested. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an article entitled “Going Rate” from the April 8, 2013 edition of The Recorder newspaper. This survey also reflects that rates 0f those Who worked on this case are Within the range, if not below, the rates charged by both partners and associates in California. 26. As outlined above, t0 prosecute this case, my firm conducted investigation with Mr. Lax and other class members, filed administrative exhaustion materials and the complaints, prepared discovery, engaged in the exchange and review of documents and data, retained an expert and worked With the expert on damage calculations, participated in mediations and engaged in further negotiations t0 reach a resolution and prepare formal settlement documents, and filed the preliminary approval. We are also filing the final approval motions and Will continue t0 work With the Settlement Administrator and class members in the funds dissemination process. To do this work, my firm incurred significant costs. The costs incurred t0 date by my firm include court, filing, and legal support costs, expert and consultant fees, mediation fees, photocopying and delivery charges, CourtCall fees and LWDA filing fees totaling $22,888.03. The costs consist 0f: filing fees, e-filing and legal support costs through First Legal, GreenFiling and the LWDA totaling $1,5 16.76; delivery charges totaling $22.62; copy charges totaling $36.15; expert and consultant fees totaling $1,437.50; and mediation fees totaling $19,875. My firm Will incur additional expenses t0 file and serve the final approval motion and t0 participate in the hearing. Costs incurred were reasonable and necessary t0 achieve the settlement reached. The Workman Law Firm Invoice outlining my firm’s billable hours and costs is attached hereto as Exhibit I. DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -15- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27. The $20,000 enhancement award requested for Mr. Lax is reasonable given his service t0 my firm and the class, as he always made himself available, actively participated in the investigation, assisted my firm in obtaining necessary data and in the preparation for, and attended and participated in the mediations. The amount 0f the requested enhancement payment, $20,000, is also reasonable by reference t0 the amounts that courts (both federal and state) found t0 be reasonable in wage and hour class action settlements. In the context 0f class actions, a substantial body of law supports service awards in the amount requested and higher. E 111i Dun & Bradstreet Credit Servs. Customer Litig, 130 F.R.D. 366 (SD. Ohio 1990) (two incentive awards 0f $55,000, and three incentive awards 0f $35,000); Enterprise Energy Corp. V. Columbia Gas Transmission C0rp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 255 (S.D. Ohio 1991)(approving $50,000 service payments); Yap V. Sumitomo Com, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2124 *12, *24 (S.D. N.Y. 1991)(appr0ving $30,000 service payments); Van Vranken V. Atlantic Richfield C0., 901 F. Supp. 294, 300 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (approving $50,000 service payments); Roberts V. Texaco, 979 F. Supp. 185, 203-204 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)(approving incentive payments of up to $85,000 for named plaintiffs in employment case settling prior t0 class certification, recognizing “the plaintiff is frequently a present 0r past employee Whose present position 0r employment credentials 0r recommendation may be at risk by reason of having prosecuted the suit, who therefore lends his 0r her name and efforts to the prosecution of litigation at some personal peril”); Cook V. Niedert 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998) (affirming $25,000 service award t0 class representative in ERISA case); Ingram V. The Coca-Cola C0., 200 F.R.D. 685, 694 (N.D. Ga. 2001)(appr0ving $300,000 payment t0 each class representative plaintiff in employment case settling before class certification); Brotherton V. Cleveland, 141 F. Supp. 2d 907, 913-14 (SD. Ohio 2001) (granting a $50,000 service award); Beck, et a1. V. Boeing C0,, Case No. 00-CV-0301-MJP, Doc. 1067 at 4 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2004 (awarding $100,000 service payments t0 each named plaintiff); Glass V. UBS Fin. Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8476 at *51-*52 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2007) (awarding $25,000 service award in FLSA overtime wages class action); Will V. Gen. Dynamics Com, 2010 WL 4818174, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2010) (awarding $25,000 each to three class representatives Who “assisted With discovery, DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -16- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 submitted to lengthy depositions, and were involved in the settlement process”); Velez V. Novartis Pharm. Com, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125945, at *69-75 (S.D.N.Y. NOV. 30, 2010) (granting service awards between $175,000 and $425,000 to 26 named plaintiffs, amounts Which included compromise of their claims for emotional distress); Been V. O.K. Indus., Inc., 2011 WL 448766, at *12-13 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 16, 201 1)(awarding $100,000 service awards to employee class representatives for assuming risk 0f retaliation); Heekin V. Anthem, Inc., 2012 WL 5878032, at *1 (S.D. Ind. NOV. 20, 2012) (awarding $25,000 each to two named plaintiffs Who “conferred and participated With Class Counsel to make key litigation decisions, travelled t0 Indianapolis to attend hearings, and reviewed the Settlement t0 ensure it was a fair recovery for the Class”); MCReVnolds V. Merrill Lynch, No. 1:05-CV-6583 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2013)(court approved $250,000 incentive awards for each of the 17 class representatives and $75,000 to each plaintiff 0n the steering committed); In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litig, 2013 WL 6577029, at *1 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2013)(appr0ving $125,000 service award); Abbott V. Lockheed Martin Cogp., N0. 06-701, 2015 WL 4398475, at *4 (S.D. Ill. July 17, 2015) (awarding $25,000); In re High Tech, 2015 5 158730, at *17 (awarding $100,000 service awards to class representatives); Spano V. Boeing C0., 2016 WL 3791 123, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016), (awarding $25,000 each t0 three class representatives who “initiated the action, took on a substantial risk, remained in contact With Class Counsel, and acted at all times for the benefit of the Class”); Seaman V. Duke University, et 211., Case N0. 1:20150V00462 (M.D. N.C. Sept. 25, 2019 (awarding $125,000 t0 class representative). 22. Consistent with the authorities set forth in the preceding paragraph, my firm consistently obtains incentive awards for class members above the amount requested for Mr. Lax. For example, in In re York Wage and Hour Class Actions, Sacramento County Superior Court Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4560, the Court entered a judgment including a $25,000 incentive payment to each class representatives Lonnetta Williams and Roshon Green. fl also Louie V. Kaiser Permanente, et a1., United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 08CVO795 (order filed February 2, 2009)(awarding $25,000); Tate V. Kaiser, Alameda County Superior Court, Case N0. RG073 1 8416 (order filed DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -17- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 November 24, 2009)(awarding $25,000); Stokes V. CSE Holdings, Inc., et a1., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case N0. CGC-13-53064O (order filed 0n December 15, 2014)(awarding $25,000); 28. Like any current employee, Mr. Lax prosecuted this action with the specter 0f retaliation being a very real concern. As the court in Parker V. Jekyll & Hyde Entm’t Holdings, LC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12762, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010), explained: “[A]s employees suing their current or former employer, the plaintiffs face the risk 0f retaliation. The current employees risk termination or some other adverse employment action, While former employees put in jeopardy their ability t0 depend on the employer for references in connection With future employment. The enhancement awards provide an incentive t0 seek enforcement of the law despite these dangers.” Other courts are in accord. E Asare V. Change Group N.Y., fl, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165935, at *39-40 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2013) (plaintiffs “faced the risk that new employers would learn that they were class representatives in a lawsuit against their former employer and take adverse action against them. Moreover, each time they change jobs, they Will risk retaliation in the hiring process”); DeWitt V. Darlington County, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172624, at *38-39 (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2013) (“Service 0r incentive payments are especially appropriate in employment litigation, Where the plaintiff is often a former 0r current employee 0f the defendant, and thus, by lending his name t0 the litigation, he has, for the benefit 0f the class as a whole, undertaken the risk 0f adverse actions by the employer or co-workers.”); Tiro V. Public House InVS., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129258, at *33-34 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2013) (significant risks of retaliation and “blacklist[ing]”); Craig V. Rite Aid Com, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2658, at *50 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2013)(“[P]1aintiffs in FLSA or state wage and hour claims are often retaliated against in the industry as a result 0f their obvious participation in such litigation”) (citing Shahriar V. Smith & Wollenskv Rest. Group, Inc., 659 F.3d 234, 244 (2d Cir. 201 1)). 29. Mr. Lax also put his future employment prospects at risk by becoming a class representative as the fact that he filed a lawsuit “is searchable 0n the internet and may become known to prospective employers When evaluating” them for employment. Guippone V. BH S&B DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -18- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONOUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Holdings, LLC, 2011 U.S., Dist. LEXIS 126026, *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 201 1). Employers routinely screen employee candidates t0 determine whether they ever filed a suit against other employers, allowing them t0 screen out the litigious candidates. An entire industry exists that allows employers t0 run extensive background searches on potential employees. Companies Who provide these services highlight the fact that their services allow employers t0 weed out litigious employment candidates. One such company, Reliable Plant, outlines ways that employers can “get a sense of Whether a prospective employee is likely t0 sue” the employer, through background checks and other means, t0 screen out these employees. E, www.reliableplant.com/Read/6959/a-solution-to-fear-of-hiring-litigious-emplovees. Onicra Credit Rating Agency of India states: “Background screening has become a necessity in today’s litigious society.” Back Track Screening also represents: “In today’s litigious culture, employers simply cannot afford t0 hire employees Who will put their company at risk.” http://Www.btscreening.com/Wp-content/uploads/ZO 1 2/09/Screening- 1 01 .pdf. PreciseHire also offers employment screening and similarly warns: “With today’s business climate being extremely competitive and highly litigious, conducting pre employment background checks has become a necessity.” https://precisehireblo,q.wordpress.com/2013/ 1 1/21/pre-emplovment- background-checks-have-become-a-busines-necissitv/. The risk Mr. Lax took With respect to his future employability by representing the class is real. Also, as stated Mr. Lax spent significant time and effort assisting my firm on behalf the class prior t0 the lawsuit, throughout the litigation, and in preparation for the mediation and attending the mediation. Mr. Lax provided my firm with information and documents regarding Defendant’s operating policies and procedures, and responded t0 any questions that we had. Mr. Lax made himself available Whenever needed. Mr. LaX’s knowledge and experience was of great importance t0 me as I performed a factual investigation into Defendant’s employment policies and practices, prepared the case for mediation, and worked With the damages expert. 30. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy 0f the November 23, 2020, Order Concerning Motion for Preliminary Approval 0f Class Action/PAGA Settlement. 3 1. As outlined above, and in the final approval motion, as a result 0f this action, in DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -19- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW hUJN KOOONQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 addition to obtaining substantial compensation for the class members, Defendant changed it compensation system. These changes Will benefit the class members, as well as other technicians, in the future. Given the work performed had such a substantial change on Defendant’s practices, and obtained such significant compensation for the class members, the multiplier of 2.343 is warranted. As explained in Newberg: “[m]u1tipliers ranging from one t0 four frequently are awarded in common fund cases when the lodestar method is applied. A large common fund award may warrant an even larger multiplier.” (Newberg 0n Class Actions V01. 3, §14.03, p. 14-15, Dec. 1992.);E Vranken V. Atlantic Richfield C0., 901 F. Supp. 294, 298 (ND. Cal. 1995). Addressing this issue Chavez V. Netflix, Inc., cited to Wershba V. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 254 (2001), Where the court recognized that “multipliers can range from 2 to 4 0r even higher.” 162 Cal. App. 4th 43, 48 (2008)(qu0ting Wersheba, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 255). A11 of the factors warranting a multiplier support the 2.343 multiplier requested here: (1) the contingent risk undertaken by my firm in prosecuting this action; (2) the results 0f this action benefit the Class members and future technicians; (3) my firm has continuing obligations to work with class members and the Settlement Administrator through the funds distn'bution process. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed 0n February 1, 2021, in San Francisco, California. Robin G. Workman DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -20- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW AWN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Cheryl Porter, am employed in the City and County 0f San Francisco. I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party to the Within action. My business address is Workman Law Firm, PC, 177 Post Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, California. My electronic service address is chery1@workmanlawpc.com. Ihereby certify that on February 1, 2021, I served the DECLARATION OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; APPROVING REQUEST FOR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FEE; APPROVING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; AND, APPROVING REQUEST FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARD TO PLAINTIFF ALFRED LAX ACTION SETTLEMENT 0n the interested parties in this action by electronic transmission Via the Odyssey eFile California program whose e-filing system will electronically serve the following attorneys of record Who have consented t0 receive electronic service of documents in this matter: Attorneys for Defendants REED E. SCHAPER HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP RSchaper@hkemploymentlaw.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California on February 1, 01w Cheryl POE 2021, that the foregoing is true and correct. (U1' DECL OF ROBIN G. WORKMAN -21- 3286\FINALAPPDECLRGW EXHIBIT A Cheryl Porter From: FormAssembly on behalf of DIR PAGA Unit Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 3:59 PM To: Cheryl Porter Subject: Thank you for your Proposed Settlement Submission 10/27/2020 03:58:24 PM Thank you for your submission to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Item submitted: Proposed Settlement If you have questions or concerns regarding this submission or your case, please send an email to pagainfo@dir.ca.gov. DIR PAGA Unit on behalf of Labor and Workforce Development Agency Website: https://ur|.emailprotection.Iink/?btquLR519waq6xiSMbuanQyFThZ4oOJDzWRjZC04- 3|U N R7krr9Hf25gAW828L4IDRayfua3-zAvq2mpJ IdTOXMoZbos7mgseZ7Du6LsgroECG3ch|HXVNOtN L3z_e EXHIBIT B http://laffeymatrix.com/see.htm 10/16/2019, 5:00 PM matrix 20f2 http://laffeymatrix.com/see.html E85] $155| V$191 | $276| $311 I wfi94-5/31/95 I 1.0.237 I $82 I $151 I $185 | $267| $301 I 55/31/96 I Loz-zl The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number 0f cases. See, e.g., McDowell V. District of Columbia, CiV. A. N0. 00-594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar V. Dist. 0f COL, 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000). * “Years Out 0fLaw School” is calculated from June 1 0f each year, When most law students graduate. “1-3" includes an attorney in his lst, 211d and 3rd years of practice, measured from date 0f graduation (June 1). “4-7" applies t0 attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of practice. An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier “1-3" from June 1, 1996 until May 3 1, 1999, would move into tier “4-7" 0n June 1, 1999, and tier “8-10" 0n June 1, 2003. ** The Adjustment Factor refers t0 the nation-Wide Legal Services Component 0f the Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. 10/16/2019, 5:00 PM EXHIBIT C $1,000 Per Hour Isn’t Rare Anymore; Nominal billing levels rise, but discounts ease blow. The National Law Journal January 13, 2014 Monday Copyright 2014 ALM Media Properties, LLC All Rights Reserved Further duplication without permission is prohibited THE NATIONAL LAWJOURNAL The National Law Journal January 13, 2014 Monday SECTION: NIJ'S BILLING SURVEY; Pg. 1 Vol. 36 N0. 20 LENGTH: 1860 words HEADLINE: $1,000 Per Hour Isn't Rare Anymore; Nominal billing levels rise, but discounts ease blow. BYLINE: KAREN SLOAN BODY: As recently as five years ago, law partners charging $1,000 an hour were outliers. Today, four- figure hourly rates for indemand partners at the most prestigious firms don't raise eyebrows-and a few top earners are closing in on $2,000 an hour. These rate increases come despite hand-wringing over price pressures from clients amid a tough economy. But everrising standard billing rates also obscure the growing practice of discounts, falling collection rates, and slow march toward alternative fee arrangements. Nearly 20 percent of the firms included in The National Law Journal's annual survey of large law firm billing rates this year had at least one partner charging more than $1,000 an hour. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Olson had the highest rate recorded in our survey, billing $1,800 per hour while representing mobile satellite service provider LightSquared Inc. in Chapter 11 proceedings. Of course, few law firm partners claim Olson's star power. His rate in that case is nearly the twice the $980 per hour average charged by Gibson Dunn partners and three times the average $604 hourly rate among partners at NL] 350 firms. Gibson Dunn chairman and managing partner Ken Doran said Olson's rate is "substantially" above that of other partners at the firm, and that the firm's standard rates are in line with its peers. "While the majority of Ted Olson's work is clone under alternative billing arrangements, his hourly rate reflects his stature in the legal community, the high demand for his services and the unique value that he offers to clients given his extraordinary experience as a former solicitor general of the United States who has argued more than 60 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has counseled several presidents," Doran said. In reviewing billing data this year, we took a new approach, asking each firm 0n the NLJ 350-our survey of the nation's 350 largest firms by attorney headcount-to provide their highest, lowest and average billing rates for associates and partners. We supplemented those data through public records. All together, this year's survey includes information for 159 of the country's largest law firms and reflects billing rates as of October. The figures show that, even in a down economy, hiring a large law firm remains a pricey prospect. The median among the highest partner billing rates reported at each firm is $775 an hour, while the median low partner rate is $405. For associates, the median high stands at $510 and the low at $235. The average associate rate is $370. Multiple industry studies show that law firm billing rates continued to climb during 2013 despite efforts by corporate counsel to rein them in. TyMetrix's 2013 Real Rate Report Snapshot found that the average law firm billing rate increased by 4.8 percent compared with 2012. Similarly, the Center for the Study of the Legal Profession at the Georgetown University Law Center and Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor found that law firms increased their rates by an average 3.5 percent during 2013. Of course, rates charged by firms on paper don't necessarily reflect what clients actually pay. Billing realization rates-which reflect the percentage of work billed at firms' standard rates- have fallen from 89 percent in 2010 to nearly 87 percent in 2013 on average, according to the Georgetown study. When accounting for billed hours actually collected by firms, the realization rate falls to 83.5 percent. "What this means, of course, is that- on average-Iaw firms are collecting only 83.5 cents for every $1.00 of standard time they record," the Georgetown report reads. "To understand the full impact, one need only consider that at the end of 2007, the collected realization rate was at the 92 percent level." In other words, law firms set rates with the understanding that they aren't likely to collect the full amount, said Mark Medice, who oversees the Peer Monitor Index. That index gauges the strength of the legal market according to economic indicators including demand for legal services, productivity, rates and expenses. "Firms start out with the idea of, 'I want to achieve a certain rate, but it's likely that my client will ask for discounts whether or not I increase my rate,” Medice said. Indeed, firms bill nearly all hourly work at discounts ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent off standard rates, said Peter Zeughauser, a consultant with the Zeughauser Group. Discounts can run as high as 50 percent for matters billed under a hybrid system, wherein a law firm can earn a premium for keeping costs under a set level or for obtaining a certain outcome, he added. "Most firms have gone to a two-tier system, with what is essentially an aspirational rate that they occasionally get and a lower rate that they actually budget for," he said. Most of the discounting happens at the front end, when firms and clients negotiate rates, Medice said. But additional discounting happens at the billing and collections stages. Handling alternative fee arrangements and discounts has become so complex that more than half of the law firms on the Am Law lOO-NLJ affiliate The American Lawyer's ranking of firms by gross revenue-have created new positions for pricing directors, Zeughauser said. THE ROLE OF GEOGRAPHY Unsurprisingly, rates vary by location. Firms with their largest office in New York had the highest average partner and associate billing rates, at $882 and $520, respectively. Similarly, TyMetrix has reported that more than 25 percent of partners at large New York firms charge $1,000 per hour or more for contracts and commercial work. Washington was the next priciest city on our survey, with partners charging an average $748 and associates $429. Partners charge an average $691 in Chicago and associates $427. In Los Angeles, partners charge an average $665 while the average associate rate is $401. Pricing also depends heavily on practice area, Zeughauser and Medice said. Bet-the-company patent litigation and white-collar litigation largely remain at premium prices, while practices including labor and employment have come under huge pressure to reduce prices. "If there was a way for law firms to hold rates, they would do it. They recognize how sensitive clients are to price increases," Zeughauser said. But declining profit margins-due in part to higher technology costs and the expensive lateral hiring market-mean that firms simply lack the option to keep rates flat, he said. BILLING SURVEY METHODOLOGY The National Law Journal's survey of billing rates of the largest U.S. law firms provides the high, low and average rates for partners and associates. The NL] asked respondents to its annual survey of the nation's largest law firms (the NL] 350) to provide a range of hourly billing rates for partners and associates as of October 2013. For firms that did not supply data to us, in many cases we were able to supplement billing-rate data derived from public records. In total, we have rates for 159 of the nation's 350 largest firms. Rates data include averages, highs and low rates for partners and associates. Information also includes the average fuII-time equivalent (FTE) attorneys at the firm and the city of the firm's principal or largest office. We used these data to calculate averages for the nation as a whole and for selected cities. Billing Rates at the Country's Priciest Law Firms Here are the 50 firms that charge the highest average hourly rates for partners. Billing Rates at the Country's Priciest Law Firms FIRM NAME LARGEST AVERAGE PARTNER ASSOCIATE U.S. FULL-TIME HOURLY HOURLY OFFICE* EQUIVALENT RATES RATES ATI'ORNEYS* AVERAGE HIGH LOW AVERAGE HIGH LOW * Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NIJ 350 published in April 2013. For complete numbers, please see NLJ.com. ** Firm did not exist in this form for the entire year. Debevoise& New York 615 $1,055 $1,075 $955 $490 $760 $120 Plimpton Paul,Weiss, New York 803 $1,040 $1,120 $760 $600 $760 $250 Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson Latham & Watkins Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Davis Polk & Wardwell Willkie Farr & Gallagher Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft Weil, Gotshal & Manges Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Squan Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr Dechert Andrews Kurth Hughes Hubbard & Reed Irell & Manella Proskauer Rose White & Case Morrison & Foerster Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Kaye Scholer Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel Hogan Lovells New York New York New York New York New York New York New York New York New York Washington New York Houston New York Los Angeles New York New York San Francisco Washington New York New York Washington 1,735 476 2,033 1,086 787 540 435 1,201 697 961 803 348 344 164 746 1,900 1,010 609 414 320 2,280 $1,035 $1,000 $990 $980 $975 $950 $930 $930 $915 $905 $900 $890 $890 $890 $880 $875 $865 $865 $860 $845 $835 $1,150 $1,100 $1,110 $1,800 $985 $1,090 $1,050 $1,075 $1,075 $1,250 $1,095 $1,090 $995 $975 $950 $1,050 $1,195 $1,070 $1,080 $1,025 $1,000 $845 $620 $930 $595 $895 $605 $765 $590 $850 $615 $790 $580 $800 $605 $625 $600 $810 $410 $735 $290 $670 $530 $745 $528 $725 $555 $800 $535 $725 $465 $700 $525 $595 $525 $615 $520 $715 $510 $740 $590 $705 - $845 $760 $725 $930 $975 $790 $750 $790 $675 $695 $735 $785 $675 $750 $675 $340 $375 $465 $175 $130 $350 $395 $300 $320 $75 $395 $265 $365 $395 $295 $1,050 $220 $725 $860 $680 $750 $230 $375 $320 $400 Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman Kirkland & Ellis Cooley Arnold & Porter Paul Hastings Curtis, Mallet- Prevost, Colt & Mosle Winston & Strawn Bingham McCutchen Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Covington & Burling King & Spalding Norton Rose Fulbright DLA Piper Bracewell & Giuliani Baker & McKenzie Dickstein Shapiro Jenner & Block Jones Day Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Seward & Kissel O'Melveny & Myers McDermott Will & Emery Reed Smith Dentons Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell Sheppard, New York 365 Chicago 1,517 Palo Alto 632 Washington 748 New York 899 New York 322 Chicago 842 Boston 900 Washington 806 Washington 738 Atlanta 838 N/A** N/A** New York 4,036 Houston 432 Chicago 4,004 Washington 308 Chicago 432 New York 2,363 Los 325 Angeles New York 152 Los 738 Angeles Chicago 1,024 Pittsburgh 1,468 N/A** N/A** Los 126 Angeles Los 521 $835 $825 $820 $815 $815 $800 $800 $795 $785 $780 $775 $775 $765 $760 $755 $750 $745 $745 $740 $735 $715 $710 $710 $700 $690 $685 $1,195 $995 $990 $950 $900 $860 $995 $1,080 $1,220 $890 $995 $900 $1,025 $1,125 $1,130 $1,250 $925 $975 $795 $850 $950 $835 $945 $1,050 $875 $875 $600 $340 $590 $540 $660 $525 $670 $500 $750 $540 $730 $480 $650 $520 $220 $450 $615 $525 $605 $415 $545 $460 $525 $400 $450 $510 $575 $440 $260 $395 $590 $475 $565 $465 $445 $435 $640 - $625 $400 $615- $525- $545 $420 $345 $425 $560 - $490 $415 $625 $715 $630 $610 $755 $785 $590 $605 $660 $565 $735 $515 $750 $700 $925 $585 $550 $775 $600 $530 $685 $535 $200 $235 $160 $345 $335 $345 $425 $185 $365 $320 $125 $300 $250 $275 $100 $310 $380 $205 $290 $295 $210 $275 Mullin, Richter Angeles & Hampton Alston & Bird Atlanta 805 $675 $875 THE FOUR- FIGURE CLUB These 10 firms posted the highest partner billing rates. THE FOUR-FIGURE CLUB Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Dickstein Shapiro Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman Morrison & Foerster Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Baker & McKenzie Bracewell & Giuliani Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Contact Karen Sloan at ksloan@a|m.com LOAD-DATE: January 13, 2014 source: Legal > / - - - / > The National Law Journal m Terms: "isn't rare anymore" (Suggest Terms for My Search) View: Full Date/Time: Friday, August 15, 2014 - 6:12 PM EDT “LexisNexisa About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions $495 $425 $575 $1,800 $1,250 $1,250 $1,220 $1,195 $1,195 $1,150 $1,130 $1,125 $1,120 | Contact Us $280 Copyright © 2014 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. A|| rights reserved. EXHIBIT D Law Firms Raise Rates, but Ease Blow With Discounts - WSJ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SBI0001424127887323820304578412692... lof3 Tl t WALL STREfl’l‘JOURNAL. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com. http:l/www.wsj.com/artic|es/SB 1 0001 4241 2788732382030457841 2692262899554 LAW On Sale: The $1,150-Per-H0ur Lawyer Lawyer Fees Keep Growing, But Don't Believe Them. Clients Are Demanding, and Getting, Discounts By JENNIFER SMITH Updated April 9, 2013 4:48 p.m. ET Top partners at leading U.S. law firms are charging more than ever before, yet those hourly rates aren’t all they appear t0 be. Having blown past the once-shocking price tag of $1,000 an hour, some sought-after deal, tax and trial lawyers are commanding hourly fees 0f $1,150 or more, according to an analysis 0fbilling rates compiled from public filings. But, as law firms boost their standard rates, many are softening the blow With widespread discounts and write-offs, meaning fewer clients are paying full freight. As a result, law firms on average are actually collecting fewer cents on the dollar, compared with their standard, or ”rack,” rates, than they have in years. Think ofhourly fees ”as the equivalent 0f a sticker on the car at a dealership," said legal consultant Ward Bower, a principal at Altman Weil Inc. "It's the beginning 0f a negotiation....Law firms think they are setting the rates, but clients are the ones determiningWhat they’re going t0 pay.” Star lawyers still can fetch a premium, and some 0fthem won’t budge on price. The number of partners billing $1,150-plus an hour has more than doubled since this time last year, according to Valeo Partners, a consulting firm that maintains a database 0f legal rates pulled from court filings and other publicly disclosed information. More than 320 lawyers in the firm’s database billed at that level in the first quarter of 2013, up from 158 a year earlier. JAMES KACZMAN That gilded circle includes tax experts such as Christopher Roman 0f King & Spalding LLP and Todd Maynes of Kirkland 8c Ellis LLP, intellectual-property partner Nader A. Mousavi 0f Sullivan 8c Cromwell LLP, and deal lawyers such as Kenneth M. Schneider of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton 8c Garrison LLP. Those lawyers and their firms either declined t0 comment or didn’t reply to 1/23/2015 10: 12 AM Law Firms Raise Rates, but Ease Blow With Discounts - WSJ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SBI0001424127887323820304578412692... 20f3 requests for comment. When corporate legal departments need a trusted hand t0 fend off a hostile takeover 0r win a critical court battle, few general counsels Will nitpick over whether a key lawyer is charging $900 an hour 0r $1,150 an hour. But for legal matters Where their future isn’t 0n the line, companies are pushing for-and winning-significant price breaks. ”We almost always negotiate rates down from the rack rates,” said Randal S. Milch, general counsel for phone giant Verizon Communications Inc. The result, he said, is a ”not-insignificant discount." For the bread-and-butter work that many big law firms rely 0n, haggling has become the norm. Many clients grew accustomed t0 pushing back 0n price during the recession and continue t0 demand discounts. Some companies insist on budgets for their legal work. If a firm billing by the hour exceeds a set cap, lawyers may have t0 write offsome 0f that time. Other clients refuse t0 work with firms Who don’t discount, lopping anywhere from 10% t0 30% off their standard rates. Some may grant rate increases t0 individual partners 0r associates they deem worthy. Another tactic: locking in prices With tailored multiyear agreements With formulas governing Whether clients grant 0r refuse a requested rate increase. In practical terms, that means the gap between law firms' sticker prices and the amount 0fmoney they actually bill and collect from their clients is wider than it has been in years. According t0 data collected by Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor, big law firms raised their average standard rate by about 9.3% over the past three years. But they weren’t able t0 keep up 0n the collection side, Where the increase over the same period was just 6%. Firms that used t0 collect 0n average about 92 cents for every dollar 0f standard time their lawyers worked in 2007, before the economic downturn, now are getting less than 85 cents. ”That’s a historic 10W,” said James Jones, a senior fellow at the Center for the Study 0f the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law. T0 be sure, things have certainly picked up some since the recession, when some clients flat-out refused t0 pay rate increases. In the first quarter 0f 2013, the 50 top-grossing U.S. law firms boosted their partner rates by as much as 5.7%, billing 0n average between $879 and $882 an hour, according t0 Valeo Partners. Rates forjunior lawyers, Whose labors have long been a profit engine for major law firms, jumped even more. 1/23/2015 10:12AM Law Firms Raise Rates, but Ease Blow With Discounts - WSJ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SBI0001424127887323820304578412692... While some clients resisted using associate lawyers during the downturn, refusing t0 pay hundreds 0f dollars an hour for inexperienced first- or second-year attorneys, the largest U.S. law firms have managed t0 send the needle back up again. This year, for the first time, the average rate for associates with one t0 four years 0f experience rose t0 $500 an hour, according t0 Valeo. The increases continue the upward trend 0f 2012, When legal fees in general rose 4.8% and associate billing rates rose by 7.4%, according to a coming report by TyMetriX Legal Analytics, a unit OfWolters Kluwer , and CEB, a research and advisory-services company. Those numbers are based 0n legal-spending data from more than 17,000 law firms. More than a dozen leaders at major law firms declined t0 discuss rate increases 0n the record, though some said privately that the increase in associate rates could be caused in part by step increases as junior lawyers gain in seniority. Joe Sims, an antitrust partner at Jones Day and former member ofthe firm’s partnership committee, said clients don't mind paying for associates, as long as they feel they are getting their money’s worth. Sophisticated clients, he said, tend to focus 0n the overall price tag for legal work, not 0n individual rates. "They are more concerned about how many people are working 0n the project and the total cost 0fthe project," Mr. Sims said. ”Clients want value n0 matterwho is on the job." While a handful 0f elite lawyers have successfully staked out the high end-the deal teams at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, for example-legal experts say that client pressure t0 control legal spending means most law firms must be considerably more flexible on price. ”There Will always be some ’bet the company’ problem Where a client Will not quibble about rates,” said Mr. Jones, the Georgetown fellow. "Unfortunately, from the law firms' standpoint, that represents a small percentage of the work." Write to Jennifer Smith at jennifer.smith@wsj.com Copyright 2014 Dow Jones a Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or vis'rt www.djreprints.com. 3 of3 1/23/2015 10:12AM EXHIBIT E wmqmmgmw IO 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FSLEE‘ QUALLS ac WORKMAN, LLp 1 Rabin G. Workmanmar #145810) g'afir‘iTM‘i robin quailgwwmkmanmm Qlimmflm Eh Ayiva . Roller (Bar #24541 5) mariafiawwquls-wormanmm fi w 1‘77 Post Street, Suite .900 fixm,_______._ 5 flmastg‘g gay ancim‘tgrgfigglggm am mmm: e one: - . “I . _ "P - mm 335%Facsamile: (415) 788-1023 Afiomeysfar Plainufis' Lonnerm William, Roshou Green, and all others similarly situated SUPERIOR. COURT 0F CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ' E {sbf g3“ a V Coordination Proceeding Special Tide Judicial Council Coordination Pmaeeding (Rule 3.550} Na. 4560 YORK CLAIMS SERVICE WAGE DECLARATION 0F RICHARD M. PEARL AND HOUR CASES IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFFLONNETTA WILLIAMS' AND ROSHON GREENS APPLICATIONFORSTATUTORY Included Actions: ATTORNEYS’ FEES Johnmn. er a1. v. Fork Claims Service, Inc. Date: A ril .24, 20.15 Miliam, er a! v. York Claim: Service. 1m, et a1. Time: :00 mm. Dept: 31 - Sn ".or Court of California, County of Sacrmnpm auto. No. 34400841000844? Superior Court ofCalifornia, County ofSan Francisco, N0. CGCv08~476427 -1~ 3164mmflONSETATUTORYFEEDfiCLPEARLDOCDEGLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL fismafiw twufi 63‘? Eiaiifamia, \qummp 10 11 '12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Richard M. Pearl, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar. I am in private practice ' as the principal 0%my own law firm, the Law Offices of Richard M. Pearl, in Berkeley, California. I specialize in issues related to court-awarded attorneys' fees, including the representation of parties in fee litigation and appeals, serving as an expert Witness, and serving as a mediator and arbitrator in disputes concerning attorneys' fees and related issues. In this case, I have been asked by Plaintiffs' counsel to express my opinion regarding the reasonableness of the attorneys' rates they are requesting in this matter. This declaration addresses that issue. Professional Background 2. Briefly summarized, my background is as follows: I am a 1969 graduate of Boalt Hall School ofLaw, University of California, Berkeley, California. Itook the California Bar EXamination in August 1969 and passed it in November of that year, but because I was working as an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia for the Legal Aid Society of Atlanta (LASA), I was not admitted to ' the California Bar until January 1970. I worked for LASA until summer of 1971, when I then went to work in California’s Central Valley for California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA), a statewide legal services program. From 1977 to 1982, I was CRLA’s Director qf Litigation, supervising more than fifty attorneys. In 1982, I went into private practice, first in a small law firm, then as a sole practitioner. Martindale Hubbell rates my law firm “AV.” I also have been selected as a Northern California “Super Lawyer” in Appellate Law for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 201 1, 2012, 2013, and 2014. A copy ofmy current Resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. ' Since 1982, my practice has been a general civil litigation and appellate practice, with an emphasis on cases and appeals involving court-awarded attorneys’ fees. I also am the author of California Attorney Fee Awards (3d ed. Cal. CEB 2010) and its February 201 l, 2012, 2013, and March 2014 Supplements, as well as all its previous editions a'nd annual supplements. California appellate courts have cited this treatise on more than 35 occasions. See, e.g., Graham v. DaimlerChrylser C0rp.(2004) 34 Ca1.4th 553, S76, 584; Lolley v. Campbell (2002) 28 Ca1.4th 367, 373; Chacon v. Litke (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1259; Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -1- ‘ 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC OOOVQUIhUJNb-n NNNNNNNNNHH mqmmgwmwoomSSGEGSES (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 698, 700. I also have lectured and written extensively on court- awarded attorneys” fees. I have been a member of the California State Bar’s Attorneys’ Fees Task Force and have testified before the State Bar Board of Governors and the California Legislature on attorneys’ fee issues. In addition, I authored a federal manual on attorneys’ fees entitled Attorneys ’ Fees: A Legal Services Practice Manual, published by the Legal Services Corporation. I also co-authored the chapter on “Attorney Fees” in Volume 2 of CEB’s Wrongful Employment Termination Practice, 2d Ed. (1 997). 4. More than 90% ofmy practice is devoted to issues involving court-awarded attorneys’ fees. I have been counsel in over 180 attorneys’ fee applications in state and federal courts, primarily representing other attorneys. I also have briefed and argued more than 40 appeals, a_t least 25 ofwhich have involved attorneys’ fees issues. I have successfully handled five cases in the California Supreme Court involving court-awarded attorneys’ fees: (1) Maria P. v. R(les (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, a landmark early decision on the scope of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 .5; (2) Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Ca1.4th 23, which held that heightened remedies, including attorneys’ fees, are available in suits against nursing homes under California’s Elder Abuse Act; (3) Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, which held, inter alia, that contingent risk multipliers remain available under California attorney fee law, despite the United States Supreme Court’s contrary ruling on federal law (note that in Ketchum, I was primary appellate counsel in the Court ofAppeal Iand “second chair” in the Supreme Court); (4) Flannery v. Prentice (2001) 26 Cal.4th 572, which held that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, statutory attorneys’ fees belong to the attorney whose services they are based upon; and (5) Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, which held, inter alia, that the “catalyst” theory was still valid under California law despite federal Supreme Court authority to the contrary. I also represented and argued on behalf of amicus curiae in Conservatorship of McQueen (2014) 59 Cal.4th 602, and, along with Richard Rothschild, filed an amicus curiae brief in Vasquez v. State ofCalifornia (2009) 45 Cal.4th 243. I also have handled numerous other appeals involving attorneys’ fees, including: Davis v. City & County ofSan Francisco (9th Cir. DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -2- 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC - \O 00 N O\ U1 $ U3 N r-l NNNNNNNNN mqmmgww~o$;:33355:3 1992) 976 F.2d 1536; Mangold v. CPUC (9th Cir. 1995) 67 F.3d 1470; Moore v. Bank ofAmerica (9th Cir. 2007) 245 Fed.Appx. 613; Velez v. Wynne (9th Cir. 2007) 2007 U.S.App.LEXIS 2194; Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008) 523 F.3d 973; Centerfor Biological Diversity v. County ofSan Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866; and Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. ofForestry & Fire Protection et al (201 0) 190 Cal.App.4th 217. For an expanded list ofmy representative decisions, see Exhibit A. 5. I also have been retained by various governmental entities, including the State of California, at my then current rates to consult with them regarding their Affirmative attorney fee claims. 6. _ I am frequently called upon to opine about the reasonableness of attorneys’ rates and fees, and numerous federal and state courts have cited my testimony on that issue favorably. The reported cases referencing my testimony include the following California appellate courts: In re Tobacco Cases I (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 570; Heritage Pacific Financial LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009; Children ’s Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740; Wilkinson v. South City Ford (2010) 2010 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 8680; Church ofScientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628 (anti-SLAPP case). My declaration also has been favorably referenced by the following federal courts: Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger (9th Cir. 2010) 608 F.3d 446, 455, in which the expert declaration referred to in that opinion is mine; Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.(9th Cir. 2012) Order filed Dec. 26, 2012; Holman et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 173698; In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (N.D.Cal. 2013) No. M 07-1 827 SI, MDL, No. 1827, Report and Recommendation of Special Master re Motions for Attorneys’ Fees etc., filed Nov. 9, 2012, adopted in relevant part, 2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 49885; Rosenfeld v. United States Dept. ofJustz'ce (N.D. Cal. 2012) 904 F.Supp.2d 988; Stonebrae v. Toll Bros. (ND. Cal. 201 1) 2011 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 39832, at *9 (thorough discussion), afl’d (9th Cir. 2013) 2013 U.S.App.LEXIS 6369; Hajro v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Service (N.D.Cal 2012) 900 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1054; Armstrong v. Brown (N.D. Cal. 201 1) 2011 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -3- 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \OOONQUI#UJNi-* NNNNNNNNN mqamgww~o6$33335528 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 87428; Californiansfor Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transportation (N.D. Cal. 2010) 2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 141030; Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger (N.D. Cal. 2008) 561 F.Supp.2d 1095 (an earlier motion); Oberfelde-r v. City 0f Petaluma (N.D. Cal. 2002) 2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 8635, afl’d (9th Cir. 2003) 2003 U.S.App.LEXIS 11371; Bancroft v. Trizechahn Corp, C.D. Cal. No. CV 02-2373 SVW (FMOx), Order Granting Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees etc., filed Aug. 14, 2006; Willoughby v. DT Credit Corp, C.D. Cal. No. CV 05-05907 MMM (wa), Order Awarding Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees After Remand, filed July 17, 2006; A.D. v.. California Highway Patrol (N.D.Cal. 2009) 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 110743, rev ’s ’d 0n other grounds (9th Cir. 2013) 712 F.3d 446, reaflirmed and additionalfees awarded on remand at 2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 169275; National Federation offhe Blind v. Target Corp. (N.D.Cal. 2009)‘2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 67139. In addition, numerous trial courts have relied upon my testimony in unpublished fee orders. 7. In this matter, I have reviewed the background and experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel and am aware of the hourly rates they are requesting. I also have discussed the case with Robin Workman. PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS’ HOURLY RATES ARE REASONABLE 8. Through my writing and practice, I have become knowledgeable about the non- contingent market rates charged by attorneys in California and elsewhere. I have obtained this knowledge in several ways: (1) by handling attorneys’ fee litigation; (2) by preparing expert declarations in numerous cases; (3) by discussing fees with other attorneys; (4) by obtaining declarations regarding prevailing market rates in cases in which I represent attorneys seeking fees; and (S) by reviewing attorneys’ fee applications and awards in other cases, as well as surveys and articles on attorneys’ fees in the legal newspapers and treatises. 9. I As noted, I am aware of the hourly rates being requested by Plaintist attorneys in this case, their experience and qualifications, the nature 0f the work performed, and the results achieved. Under California law, Plaintiffs attorneys are entitled to their requested rates if those rates are “within the range of reasonable rates charged by and judicially awarded comparable DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -4- 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOOQONLh-bUJN-n NNNNNMNNN mqamgww~o$5§3$§55:3 attorneys for comparable work.” Children ’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Bonta [CHMC] (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 783. In my opinion, the information about non-contingent hourly rates I have gathered, some ofwhich is summarized below, shows that the rates requested by Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter are well within the range of the non-contingent market rates charged by Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Area attorneys ofreasonably comparable experience; skill, and expertise for reasonably comparable services.‘ I base that opinion in large part on the following data: Court Awards 10.. ' The following hourly rates have been found reasonable by various California courts for reasonably similar services: > M ('1) Ammari v. Pacific Bell Directory, Alameda Superior Court No. RGOS 1 9801 4, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees, Reimbursement of Costs, and Service Awards, filed January 5, 2015, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Years 0f Experience m 49 $995 4S 700 39 800 39 750 37 895 33 I 650 24 720 24 450 23 700 ‘ In my experience, for purposes 0f the hourly rates charged and found reasonable by the courts, the differences between complex individual actions and class actions are not significant, either factually or legally. See, e.g., Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009; Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008) 523 F.3d 973, 979. DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -5- 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC KDOONONUI-bWNH NNNMNNNNNHH mqomthHoomSEGESSZS 23 650 19 650 19 625 19 475 _ 600 (as Partner) 14 475 (as Associate) 12 340 11 500 9 375 8 655 4 375 (2) Rodriguez v. County ofLos Angeles, C.D. Cal. No. 2:10-cv-O6342- CBM-AJW, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, filed December 29, 2014, a civil rights action on behalf of five county jail prisoners, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable, plus a 2.0 lodestar multiplier for merits work performed on the plaintiffs’ state cause of action: Years ofExperience m 45 $975 28 700-775 26 775 10 600 6 500 Senior Paralegal 295 Other Paralegals 175-23 5 Law Clerk 250 (3) Banas v. Volcano Corp, N.D. Cal. No. 3:12-cv-01535-WHO, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Volcano’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed December 12, 20 l4, a dispute over a merger agreement decided on summary judgment, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Level Rate Partners and associates $355-1,095 E-discovery attorneys 260-325 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -6- 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOONQUIhUJNr-n NNNNNNNNN mqmmawm~o$$33$3$523 Level Rate Paralegals 245-290 (4) Holman v. Experian. N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-018O CW DMR, Order Giving Final Approval to Class Action Settlement, And Awarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs And Incentive Awards, filed December 12, 2014 Years of Experience m 45 $675 42 750 14 690 12 450 Paralegal 150 (5) Dixon v. City 0f0akland et al. N.D. Cal. No. C-12-05207 DMR, 'Order Granting in Pan Plaintiff‘s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, filed December 8, 2014, an individual law enforcement misconduct action, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable, plus a 1.10 lodestar multiplier for merits work: Years of Experience m 45 $750 23 725 19 695 5 400 3 350 2 325 Paralegal 200 b (6) IPVXPatent Holdings, Inc. v. Voxemet LLC, N.D. Cal. No. 5:13-CV- 01 708-HRL,Ia patent infringement case, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Years of Experience R_at§% 45 $750 35 750 23 725 19 695 5 400 3 350 Paralegal 125 E2 18 $755 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -7- 31 64\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \OOGQQU‘IhUJNH NNNNNNNNN mqamgmNHCGESSGESEZS Years of Experience Rate 11 595 2 425w 40 $865 17 755 10 595 1 375 > (7) Doe v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance C0., et al., C.D. Cal. No. SACV 13- 0864 DOC(JPRX), Order Granting Attorney’s Fees and Costs, filed October 15, 2014, a multi- Plaintiff consumer action, in which the court found the following hourly'rates reasonable: Whatlex Kallas Years ofExperience w 36 $950 27 900 32 800 33 750 21 700 10 600 4 400 2 375 Paralegal 225 Consumer Watchdog 3 5 $925 19 650 4 425 > (8) Rose v. Bank ofAmerica Corp, N.D. Cal. No. 5:1 1-CV-02390-EJD; 5:12 CV-04009-EJD, Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement; Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, filed August 29, 2014, a consumer class action involving the Bank’s loan servicing calls, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: b Partners: $775-350 > Associates: $525-325 (9) Carpio v. California Department ofSocial Services, Los Angeles County Superior Court, NQ. BS 135127, Order Granting Plaintist Motion For Attorney’s Fees, filed July 24, DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -8- 3164\MOT|0NS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOONQUI-fi 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2014, a government benefits writ ofmandate, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Years m 39 $750 35 730 13 500 8 460 6 440 (10) Cornell v. City & County ofSan Francisco, San Francisco County Superior Court N0. CGC-l 1-509240, Order Granting Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Subj ect to Modifications, filed May 15, 2014, an individual police misconduct/employment action, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable, plus a 1.25 lodestér multiplier for merits work: Years of Experience m 45 $750 35 750 I 23 725 l9 695 5 400 3 350 Paralegal 125 2013 Rates (1) Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp, N.D. Cal. N0. C04-3341 EMC, Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed May 27, 2014, an employment class acfion, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Years of Experience w 3 8 $700 35 825 30 650-825 29 875 19 725 9 500 8 460 7 425-575 6 43 5 3 3 1 5 Paralegals 155-295 DECLARATION OIF RICHARD M. PEARL -9- 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOOQQU‘u-I>WNH NNNNNNNM mqmmth-SGESSGEGB:S Years ofExperience Rate Law Clerks 185-275 (2) In re Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation, Contra Costa County Superior Ct. No. MSC10-00840, Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses and Authorizing Payment of Incentive Award to the Class Representative, filed October 18, 2013, a consumer class action, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Years of Experience m 17 $850 16 680 11 (partner) 680 36 675 32 675 28 (assoc.) 620 4 400 3 390 Paralegals and Litigation Support 160-1 80 (3) Reuters America LLC v. The Regents ofthe Univ. ofCalif, Alameda County Superior Court No. RG12-613664, Order Granting in Part Motion of Plaintiff for Attorneys’ Fees filed May 2, 2013, reversed on the merits sub nom Regents ofU C. v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, a California Public Records Act action, in which the trial court found the following hourly rates reasonable, before applying a 1.3 lodestar multiplier: Years of Experience m 3 1 $785 27 600 6 400 (4) Recouvreur v. Carreon (N.D. Cal. 2013) 940 F.Supp.2d 1063, a Lanham Act/ sanctions fee motion, in which the court found the following hourly rate reasonable: Years ofExperience . Rate 20+ $700 2012 Rates DECLARATION 0F RICHARD M. PEARL -10- 31e4\M0TiONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.Doc \DOOVQU‘I-th 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonable: (1) In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (N.D.Cal. 2013) No. M O7 1827 SI', MDL, No. 1827, an antitrust class action, in which the court found the following hourly rates Zelle Hofman Bar Admission Rate 1967 $1000 1978 861 2001 619 2002 525 2005 500 2006 472 2009 417 Stexer, Lowenthal e; al. Bar Admission Rate 2012 Rate 2011 Rate 2010 1981 $820 $770 $730 1995 660 640 590 2007 380 360 320 2008 380 360 320 1982 750 710 '680 Paralegal 190 Cooper & Kirkham Bar Admission Rates 2010-2012 1964 $950 1975 825 2001 550 (2) Rosenfeld v. United States Dept. ofJustice (N.D. Cal. 2012) 904 F.Supp.2d 988, a Freedom 0f Information Act action, in which the court found the following hourly rates I reasonable: Years of Experience m 28 $700 21 550 1 200 Law students 160- 1 80 DECLARATION 0F RICHARD M. PEARL -1 1- 3164\M0T!0NS\STATUT0RYFEEDECLPEARLDOC \OOONONLII#UJNH NNNNNNNNN mqamgmeoSSSSGESEES (3) Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises, Inc., Alameda County Superior Ct. No. RG08366506, Order of Final Approval and Judgment filed November 8, 2012, a wage and hour class action, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Year ofBar Admission Raj 1970 $785 1 976 775 1981 750 1993 650-700 1994-1997 500-650 2004 500 2005 470 2006 445-475 2007 450 2008 400 2009 350 (4) American Civil Liberties Union v. Drug Enforcement Administration, N.D. Cal. No. C-l 1-01977 RS, Order Granting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552, filed November 8, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act case, in Which the coult found the following hourly rates reasonable: Year of Bar Admission E 1970 $700 1996 595 1999 575 Law Clerks 150 (5) Luquez‘ta v. The Regents offhe Univ. ofCalifomia, San Francisco Superior Ct. N0.CGC-05-443007, Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Common Fund Attorneys’- Fees and Expenses, filed October 31, 2012, a class action to recover tuition overcharges, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Year of Bar Admission w 1977 $850 1986 785 1991 750 1994 700 1998 625 2000 570 2001 550 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -12- 3164\M0TI0N$\STATUT0RYFEEDECLPEARL.Doc \OOONONUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHH oo \q ox u: .p L» b; ~a c> xo oo :3 S? Ci i; C3 E3 :3 ES 2002 520 Law Clerks 250 Paralegals 2 1 5 (6) Davis v. Prison Health Services (N.D. Cal. 2012) 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138556, an individual Fair Employment and Housing Act case, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable: Years of Experience m 33 $750 29 675 4 300 6 265 2011 Rates (1) Pierce v. County 0fOrange (C.D. Cal. 2012) 905 F.Supp.2d 1017, a civil rights class action brought by pre-trial detainees, in which the court approved a lodestar, including appellate fees, based 0n the following 2011 rates: Years 0f Experience w 42 $850 32 825 23 625 1 8 625 Law Clerks 250 Paralegals 250 (2) Davis v. Prison Health Services (N.D. Cal. 2012) 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138556, an individual Fair Employment and Housing Act case, in which the cou1_'t found the following hourly rates reasonable: Years of Experience m 33 $750 29 675 4 300 6 265 (3) Holloway et. al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 201 1) No. 05-5056 PJH, Order dated November 9, 201 1, a class action alleging that Best Buy discriminated against female, African American and Latino employees by denying them promotions and lucrative sales positions, in which the court approved a lodestar award based 0n the following rates: DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -13- 3164\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC OOOVQLI‘IAUJN- N [\J N N N N N N [\J H fl V Years 0f Experience Rate 37 $825 Associates 8 490 6 405 Law Clerks 225 Paralegals 2 1 5 (4) Molina, et al. v. Lexmark International, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC339177, Ofder Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in the Amount 0f $5,722,008.07, filed October 28, 201 1, afl’d (2013) 2013 Ca1.App.Unpub. LEXIS 6684, a class action to recover forfeited vacation pay, in which the court found the following hourly rates reasonable (before applying a 2.0 multiplier): Years of Experience m 42 $675 25 550 24 655-675 23 625 20 550 17 600 9 475 6 350 Paralegals 210 Paralegals 210 b (5) Hartless v. Clorox, 273 F.R.D. 630, 644 (S.D. Cal. 201 1), in which the Court found, inter alia, that class counsel’s requested rates were consistent with the hourly rates found reasonable in numerous other class actions and with rates charged by other firms in the local area, including rates of $795 per hour for a 25-year attorney and $675 pe‘r hour for an experienced partner. 2010 Rates (1) Californiansfor Disability Rights, Ina, et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al. (N.D.Ca1. 2010) 2010 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 141030, adopted by Order Accepting Report and Recommendation filed February 2, 201 1, a disability-access class action, in which the court found the following 2010 hourly rates reasonable: DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -14- 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \OOOQONUI#WNH NNNNNNNNN mqomgmNHOBQSEGEES'SS Years of Experience Rate 49 $835 34 730 26 740 25 730 19 660 10 570 9 560 7 535 6 500 5 475 3 350 2 290 1 225-265 Senior Paralegals 265 Law Clerks 175 Case Clerks 165 Rate Information from Surveys 11. I also base my opinion on several credible surveys of legal rates, including the following: On January 13, 2014, the National Law Journal published an article about its most recent rate survey. That article included a chart listing the billing rates of the 50 firms that charge the highest average hourly rates for partners. A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Of the 50 firms listéd, several have offices in the Los Angeles Area and many others have significant litigation experience in this area. And, although the rates that Plaintiff s counsel are requesting here are significantly lower than many of the rates charged by the listed films, the NLJ chart does show the range of rates charged for similar services, which is the applicable standard. See CHMC, 97 Cal.App.4th at 783. In an article entitled “On Sale: The $1,150-Per Hour Lawyer,” written by Jennifer Smith and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 9, 2013, the author describes the rapidly growing number of lawyers billing at $1,150 or more revealed - in public filings and major surveys. A true and correct copy 0f that article is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The article also notes that in the first quarter of 2013, DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -15- 3164\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOOQQU‘IAUJNH NNNNNNNNN ' oo ‘4 ax Ln 4: uu re ~- c: CB 53 :3 5: C: E; C3 E3 :3 ES the 50 top-grosSing law firms billed their partners at an average rate between $879 and $882 per hour. o In an article published April 16, 2012, the Am Law Daily described the 2012 Real Rate Report, an analysis of $7.6 billion in legal bills paid by corporations over a ' five-year period ending in December 201 1. A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit D. That article confirms that the rates charged by experienced and well-qualified attorneys have continued to rise over the five-year period between 2006 and 201 1, particularly in large urban areas. It also shows, for example, that the top quartile of lawyers bill at an average of “just under $900 per hour.” Rates Charged by Other Law Firms 11. The standard hOurly non-contingent rates for comparable civil litigation stated in cofirt filings, depositions, surveys, or other reliable sources by'numerous California law firms or law firms with offices or practices in California also support counsel’s rates. The following hourly rates are those charged Where full payment is expected promptly upon the rendition of the billing and without Consideration of factors other than hours and rates. Ifany substantial part of the payment were to be contingent or deferred for any substantial period, for example, the fee arrangement would be adjusted accordingly to compensate the attorneys for those factbrs. These rates include, in alphabetical order: ' Altshuler Berzon LLP 2014 Rates: Years of Experience Raj 38 $895 2012 Rates: Years of Experience w . 34 $850 26 785 21 750 18 700 14 625 12 570 11 550 10 520 6 410 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -16- 3164\M0T|0NS\STATUT0RYFEEDECLPEARL.Doc \OOONONUI#UJNH NNNNNNNN co ~q ox Ln 4> u: ha h- 23 CS 53 :3 E; C; 3; :3 F3 :3 ES Altshuler Berzon LLP 5 4 Law Clerks Paralegals 2011 Rates: Years of Experience 43 1 7 12 1-0 Law Clerks Paralegals Amold Porter LLP 2013 Rates: Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate TheAms Law Firm LLP 2014 Rates: Years ofExperience 37 Law Clerks 385 335 250 215 Egflg $825 675 575 520 225 215 $815 950 670 500 610 345 EQEE $950 165 Bernstein Litowitz Borger & Grossman LLP (San Diego Ofltcez 2009 Rates: Bingham McCutchen 2013 Rates: 2011 Rates: 2010 Rates: Years ofExperience Partners Associates Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years of Experience 30 Years of Experience 1 3 4 2 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -17- Rate $725 490-550 $795 L080 220 450 605 185 :ggg $780 Egg; $655 480 400 3164\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOONONU‘I#WNH NNNNNNNNN' mqamgww~o$§33$3$5:3 Blood Hurst & 0 ’Reardon 2012 Rates: Years of Experience 22 17 6 5 1 Paralegals Burson & Fisher 2013 Rates: Years of Experience 16 11 4 3 2 1 Law Clerks Litigation Support Specialists Chavez.& Gertl'er 2014 Rates Years of Experience 35 3 1 33 12 5 . Legal Assistant Years of Experience 33 29 32 21 11 7 Legal Assistant Years of Experience 32 28 1 0 9 5 Paralegals 2012 Rates: 2011 Rates: DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -18- M $655 585 510 410 305 260 Mg $680-850 680 400 390 375 300 225 180 .EEE $775 750 695 575 395 225 BQE $750 725 675 575 535 475 185 Eflflg $725 700 550 510 425 225 31 64\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC VOOONONUIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chavez & Gertler Coblent; Patch & Dufl'z 2013 Rates: Year ofBar Admission Rate 1979 $720 1994 575 2008 320 Paralegals/Case Clerks 295 Cohelan Khourv & Singer 2012 Rates: Years of Experience Rate 38 $750 28 750 11 400 Paralegal 170 Cooley LLP 2014 Rates: Average Partner $820 Highest Partner 990 Lowest Partner 660 Average Associate 5 1 5 Highest Associate 640 Lowest Associate 330 Cooger & Kirkham 2012 Rates: Years of Experience Rate 48 $950 37 825 1 1 600 Catchett, Pitre & McCarthy,M 2014 Rates: Years of Experience Rate 33 $775 22 775 15 500 4 360 Paralegals, case 225-250 assistants, law clerks Covington Burling 2014 Rates Le_vel Rafi Average Partner $780 Highest Partner 890 Lowest Partner 605 Average Associate 41 5 Highest Associate 565 Lowest Associate 320 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -l9- 31 64\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC KOOONQU‘IhUJN- NNNNNNNNN oo \q ox u: .n ua n: ha c: CB 53 :3 5i Ci iE Z3 F3 :3 E; Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP 2013 Rates: Years of Experience 28 16 l4 7 2 5 Litigation Support 2012 Rates: Years of Experience 27 1 5 13 2011 Rates: Years ofExperience 26 2010 Rates: Years of Experience 25 13 1 N-PQWH Dreyer Babich Buccolla Wood Camara LLP 2014 Rates: Years of Experience ' 31 27 14 (associate) Farella Braun & Martel] LL_I_’ 2010 Rates: Years of Experience 31 Fenwick & West DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -20- lgflg $750 670 670 510 375 490 1 10-355 Ba_te $730 632-650 650 gat_e $710 640 600 565 550 425 390 320 Egg $71 0 640 575-600 550-565 525-550 390-425 350-390 Egg $775 775 415 BEE $715 3164\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC OOONQMALHNn-I NNNNNN - oo \q ch u: 4: ua £3 E3 23 CS 33 :3 5; E; 5; C3 E3 :3 ES Fenwick & West 2014 Rates 2013 Rates 2012 Rates Furth Firm LLP 2010 Rates: Years of Experience 45 35 23 19 5 3 Paralegal 18 1 1 2 40 17 10 1 Years of Experience 51 39 38 33 25 23 21 l9 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 7 4 Law Clerks Gibson Dunn & CrutcherLLP 2013 Rates: Average Partner DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -21- w $750 750 725 695 400 350 125 $755 595 425 $865 755 595 375 Qtfi $875 750 600 775 550 650 625 610 600 585 570 560 550 525 515 510 505 500 460 435 125-260 $980 31 64\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARLDOC \OOOVQUIAUJNt-I NNNNNNNNN oo \J ox U1 .p o» k: _‘ c> CB SS :3 5? Ci i: C3 K3 :3 ES Gibson Dunn & CrutcherLA’ Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & H0 2014 Rates: 2012 Rates: 2011 Rates: 2010 Rates: Years of Experience 33 27 8 4 3 1 Law Clerks/Paralegals Years of Experience Partners 42 36 3 1- 18 Associates 7 6 Years of Experience Partners 41 35 30 .24 18 17 16 Years of Experience Partners 40 34 29 23 17 16 Of Counsel DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -22- 1,800 765 590 930 175 Ba: $795 750 500 39s 350 300 160-250 Eggg $785 750 700 650 470 445 Rate $725 725 700 650 600 600 550 Egg $700 700 675 625 575 575 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOOVONU‘I#UJNH NNNNNNNN oo \q ox u: .n us n) Hi E3 :3 33 :3 5: C; :3 C3 E3 :1 :3 Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho 4O Associates 1 5 1 HNW-FMQt-A Law Clerks Paralegals Greenberg, Traurig, LLP 2010 Rates: Years of Experience 22 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richlm 2012 Rates: Years ofExperience 4 1 29 23 1 8 Law Clerks Hadsell, Stormer, Keenv. Richardson & Renick 2012 Rates: 2010 Rates: Years of Experience 38 33 22-23 1 7 12 10 4 3 Years of Experience 36 31 20-21 15 10 8 4 2 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -23- 725 $500 440 375 365 355 340 325 305 195 150-225 Rate $850 M $850 850 650 500 100 w $825 77S 625 600 525 425 275 250@ $800 750 600 575 475-500 425 325 275 31 64\MOTlONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DWNONUI-FUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hadsell, Stormer. Keenv, Richgrdson & Rem'ck HausteldLLP 2014 Rates: Irell & Manella 2013 Rates: Janssen Malloy LLP 2014 Rates: Jones Dag 2013 Rates: 1 Years ofExperience 45 37 15 14 7 3 Paralegals Law Clerks Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years of Experience 33 Paralegals Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt 2014 Rates Years of Exgerience 45 28 26 1 O 6 Senior Paralegal Other Paralegals DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -24- 250 EQEE $985 93 5-895 61 0-5 1 0 600 490 370 300-320 325 $890 975 800 535 750 395 Rate $775 175 $745 975 445 435 775 205 Efifls $975 700-775 775 600 500 295 175-235 31 64\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \OOONQU‘I-PUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNH co \q ox uu .p u» nu ha c> xo 33 :3 5? Ci i; CS E3 :3 E; Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & L__itt Law Clerk Keker & Van Nest, LLP 2010 Rates: Years of Experience Partners 32 Other Partners Associates Paralegals/Support Staff Kemnitger, Barron & Krieg 2014 Rates: Years of Experience 3 8 32 8 3 Senior Paralegal Kiesel, Boucher, Larson LLP 2012 Rates: Kingsley & Kingsley 2010 Rates: Kirkland & Ellis 2013 Rates: Years of Experience Partners 27-28 Associates Mm; 14 NWUIONNOO Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Knapp, Petersen & Clarke 2012 Rates: Years of Experience 36 9 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -25- 250 Rate $775 525-975 340-500 120-260 m $750 750 475 350 250 Rate $890 625-325 w $655 475-5 l 5 475 485 375 350 300 $825 995 590 S40 715 235 Rate $753 554 31 64\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARLDOC \OWNONUI-hWNH NNNNNNNNN oo \q ox Ux .5 us n) _‘ c: :3 83 :3 5i CC i; {3 E3 :3 E; Knagg, Petersen & Clarke 6 Knobbe Martin Olson & Bear LLP 2012 Rates: Latham & Watkins 2013 Rates: Lawson Law Ofltces 2012 Rates: 2011 Rates: Years of Experience Partners Associates Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years of Experience 24 Years of Experience 23 20 Lewis Feinberg Lee, Renaker & Jackson. P.C. ** 2012 Rates: Years of Experience 38 29 24 21 8 7 3 Senior Paralegals Law Clerks Litt, Estugr, & Kitson, LLP** 2011 Rates: Years of Experience 42 18 17 5 ‘3 Senior Paralegals Law Clerks Manatt, Phelgs I& Ph illigs DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -26- 383 Rate $395-710 285-450 $990 1 , 1 00 895 605 725 465 Egflg $650 Rate 625 550 BEE $825 750 725 700 450 425 375 250 225 m $825 625 625 425 375 125-235 225 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARLDOC \DOOVQUI-PUJN 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23V 24 25 26 27 28 Manatt, Phelgs & Philligs 2013 Rates: 2010 Rates: Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Partners Associates McKenng Long & Aldridge LLL’ 2014 Rates: Minami TamakiLLP 2012 Rates: Years of Experience 30 9 5 Litigation Support Mgr. Paralegals Years of Experience 36 l 5 5 Paralegals Morrison Foerster LLP 2013 Rates: 2011 Rates: 2009 Rates: O’Melvenz & Myers 2013 Rates: Years of Experience Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years of Experience 22 1 1 10 1 . Years ofExperience a Years of Experience Average Partner Highest Partner DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -27- $740 795 640 525-850 200-525 BEE $775 650 420 3 50 225 Rate $750 525 395 175 BEE $865 1, l 95 595 525 725 230 BEE $775 625 620 335 BEE $750 Rate $7 1 5 950 3 164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC H NNNNNNNN oo ~q ch um ¢> no ha ha 23 C3 33 :3 5: C: 3; C3 E3 :3 ES ©06NO\UI#UJN O’Melveny & Myers 2012 Rates: Lowest Partner Years of Experience 12 4 Orrick Herrington & Sutcljfl 2014 Rates: Paul Hastings LLP 2014 Rates: Patton Boggs 2010 Rates: DECLARATION OF RICHARD Years of Experience Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years of Experience Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years of Experience Partners l4 29 20 33 27 13 24 14 Of Counsel 3O 15 Associates 9 7 3 2 Senior Paralegals M. PEARL -28- 615 Eggs $695 495 lflflg $845 1,095 715 560 710 375 ESE: $815 900 750 540 755 595 Rate $830 750 750 700 700 575 550 530 600 500 450 425 340 315 200-265 3164\MOTlONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARLDOC oooflQm-PUJNI-I NNNNNNNNNHH oomoxmngHcsxoooSEGESSV-‘S Patton Boggs Paralegals Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2013 Rates: 2010 Rates: Years ofExperience Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years of Experience Partners 3O Other Partners Associates Paralegals/Support Staff Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &Sullivan 2013 Rates: Reed Smith LLP 2013 Rates: Average Partner Highest Partner Lowest Partner Average Associate Highest Associate Lowest Associate Years ofExperience Partner 36 3O 17 14 Associates 8 6 Robbins Geller Rudmgn & DowdLLP 2012 Rates: Years of Experience Partners 26 19 Associates Paralegals Rosen, Bien, Galvan & GrunteldLLP 2013 Rates: Years of Experience DECLARATION 0F RICHARD M. PEARL -29- 170 m $865 1,070 615 520 860 375fi $705-775 595-965 320-650 85-3 80 $915 1,075 810 410 675 320 Rate $830 805 610-615 570 450-535 495 Rate $695 575 535-345 295 Rate 3164\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARLDOC QWQQU‘I-hw 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rosen, Bien, Galvan & GrunteldLLP Partners 51 33 29 16 Of Counsel 30 Associates 20 10 WhMQNOOO Paralegals Litigation Support/ Paralegal clerk Law Clerk/Students Word Processing 2012 Rates: Years of Experience Partners 50 32 28 15 Of Counsel 29 Associates 19 10 W-BKIIONNO Paralegals Litigation Support/ Paralegal clerk Law Clerk/Students Word Processing 2011 Rates: Years of Experience Partners DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -30- $875 780 660 630 580 550 480 465 445-450 440 435 405 375 355 220-280 170 250 80 Rate $860 760 640 6 1 0 570 540 470 460 400 400 380 360 340 215-280 150 240 80 Rate 3164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC WOOQQLII¥UJNH NNNNNNNNN mqmmgww~o$§33$3$538 Rosen, Bien, Galvan & GrunteldLLP 49 3 1 27 14 Of Counsel 28 Associates 18 1 1 10 Nw-RMONOOO Paralegals Litigation Support/ Paralegal clerk Law Clerk/Students Word Processing 2010 Rates: Years of Experience Partners 48 30 26 13 Of Counsel 27 Associates 17 13 mefloow Paralegals Litigation Support/ Paralegal clerk Law Clerk/Students Word Processing Rudy, Exelrod, Ziefl & LoweLLP DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -31- $840 740 625 590 540 525 465 450 440 420 385 365 350 325 3 15 205-275 140-220 225 75 Rate $800 700 575 S60 520 510 490 430 41 5 390 360 325 285 200-275 135-220 190 70 31 64\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOONQUIhUJNp- NNNNNNNNNH ooqoxmawmt-oxo53EGEUEC-‘S Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff& Lowe LLP 2010 Rates: Years of Experience Rate Partners 42 $725 32 725 15 625 Associates 21 495 13 485 8 450 Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Koneclfl LLP 2014 Rates: Years ofExperience M Partners 13-22 $750 Associates/Of Counsel 575 20 535-345 37 295 10-13 650 0-3 350-475 Paralegals/Law Clerks 135-300 Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seglow, Harris & Hoflman 2012 Rates: Years of Experience m 27 $695 22 630 Sheggard, Mullin, Richter & Hamgton 2010 Rates: Years of Experience m Partners $495-820 Associates 270-620 Sidleg Austin 2010 Rates: Years ofExgerience m Partners 33 $900 Senior Partners 1, 1 00 Legal Assistants 120-280 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 2013 Rates: Average Partner $1,035 Highest Paflner 1, 1 50 Lowest Partner 845 Average Associate 620 Highest Associate 845 Lowest Associate 340 DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL -32_ 3 164\MOTIONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL.DOC \DOOQONUIAUJN- NNNNNNNNN mqam¢wm~o$§3333$535 Sgiro Moore LLP 2012 Rates: Stebner andAssociates 2014 Rates: Years ofExperience 30+ 17 Years of Experience 27 22 Law Ofllces 01 Michael D. Thamer 2014 Rates: Years of Experience 3 1 Townsend and Townsend and Crew Years of Experience2010 Rates: Partners Associates ‘Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RggtiPC Years of Experience2010 Rates: 28 Other Partners Associates Paralegals/Litigation Support Zelle Hotmann Voelbel & Mason, LLP Years ofExperience2012 Rates: 2012 Rates: Partners Associates Paralegals Law Clerks Years of Experience Partners 38 26 23 22 Associates 9 4 3 2 1 Paralegals DECLARATION 0F RICHARD M. PEARL -33- Rate $700 600 Rate $695 630 Rate $775 Rate $470-475 260-460 m $875 650-975 290-6 1 O 120-300 w Up to $950 Up to $540 Up to $290 Up to $250m $800 685 650 640 500 435 41 5 405 395 2 1 0-290 3164\MOT|ONS\STATUTORYFEEDECLPEARL. DOC \DOOflQM-h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. While most of the hourly rates set forth above pertain to law firms based in the San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles area, Plaintiffs counsel’s rates are also consistent with the rates charged and awarded by the courts in the Sacramento area. For example, in Johnson v. Sears, Roebuck & Ca, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2009-00054053-CU-WT-GDS, Ruling 0n Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed May 23, 2012, an individual Fair Employment and Housing case, the court found that a reasonable hourly rate in 2012 for plaintiff’s lead counsel, a 34-year attorney, was $625 per hour. For his associate, a four-year attorney, the court found $325 per hour was reasonable. (The court also applied a 1.5 multiplier.) A copy of the Johnson v. Sears Ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Similarly, in Ford Explorer Cases, Sacramento Superior Court, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding Nos. 4266 & 4270, Ruling on Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; Request for Multiplier; etc. filed June 27, 2008 (Exhibit F), the court approved and awarded hourly rates of up t0 $650 per hour for partner level work. 14. The foregoing data shows that the rates charged by Robin Workman, at $650 per héur, and Aviva Roller, at $350 per hour are well within the range of rates charged by comparably qualified attorneys for reasonably similar work. This is confirmed by the Declaration 0f William Kershaw, who practices in Sacramento, California and charges $700 per hour for his work and $350 per hour for that of his associates at the firm ofKershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff. 15. In my experience, fee awards are almost always determined based on current rates, z'.e., the attorney’s rate at the time a motion for fees is made, rather than the historical rate at the time the work was performed. This is a common and accepted practice to compensate attorneys for the delay in being paid. The hourly rates set forth above are those charged where full payment is expected promptly upon the rendition of the billing and without consideration of factors other than hours and rates. If any substantial part of the payment were to be deferred for any substantial period of time, for example, the fee arrangement would be adjusted accordingly tobompensate the attornéys for those factors. 16. Attorneys who litigate on a wholly or partially contingent. basis expect to receive significantly higher effective hourly rates in cases where compensation is contingent on success, DECLARATION 0F RICHARD M. PEARL -34- 3164\M0TIONS\STATUT0RYFEEDECLPEARL.Doc \OOO'QONUI-IAUJMH NNNNNNN mummguwflgGgggGE$5:S particularly in hard-fought cases where, as in the case at bar, the result is uncertain. As the case law recognizes, this does not result in any “windfall” or undue “bonus.” In the legal marketplace, a lawyer who assumes a significant financial risk on behalfof a client rightfully expects that his or her compensation will be significantly greater than ifno risk was involved (i.e., if the client paid the bill on a monthly basis), and that the greater the risk, the greater the “enhancement.” Adjusting court-awarded fees upward in contingent fee cases to reflect the risk of recovering no compensation whatsoever for hundreds ofhours of labor (or more) simply makes those fee awards consistent with the legal marketplace, which expects additional compensation for taking such risks. In making fees consistent with the legal marketplace, risk enhancements help to ensure that meritori ous' cases will be brought to enforce important public interest policies and that clients who have meritorious claims will be better able to obtain qualified counsel. 17. The expense and risk of public interest litigation has not diminished over the years; to the contrary, these cases are in many ways more difficult than ever. As a result, fewer and fewer attorneys and firms are willing to take on such litigation, and the few who are willing to do so can only continue if their fee awards reflect true market value. 1'8. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify from my personal knowledge to the facts stated herein. I declare under penalty 0f perj u1'y that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed thisflfi'ay ofMarch 201 5, in Berkeley, California. rum... "I _ ”.m.‘ M. yyyyyyyyy? I ’1/ /i “N K /\J/k/W y»fl/’x zaiflékg Ax/ Richard M. Pearl DECLARATION 0F RICHARD M. PEARL -35- 31emonmsxsmTUTORYFEEDECLPEARLDOC g a g . k w m fi g 8 . . E n g . S . w a g . . z. . . . _ t . r m . ” H g g . W E E E 3 Q E D H m O H E g g H F m g ” E m m 5 : m u n g w o m a n u s a O b 3 3, 9 G u s « $ . 8 8 3 H 8 m a . g u s . A fi a m fl m fl 3 9 3 3 . 5 2 A 3 3 8 9 5 ¢ qu 3. 0 3 : . ng w fl w o w w P ? @ 8 3 5 5 9 5 a E m aE = E - m a r o o fl c u r e : g n u . H . U . G E E $ me w ; E g g 5 5 5 - . m e a n w a n o w g a n g 9 3 5 E H E E Q 8 9 3 K a w fi . a g o W E . 3 . 0 0 9 6 » @ 9 5 3 3 . E u m H 3 8 a n n o n x a v E s a u ? E S g o n e w : n a m e s ? m a n 0 2 5 m E a G E E m g m a n g o n a g . . . = 6d u g m g 0 2 5 o » . > 3 2 : n . 2 , ? U 5 5 3 o m n o E B E h B a 2 E 9 D E E R . E a G E E m fi fl E O E H E Q E G Z S E Q F G a n s - g a m o g g m fl n fi o w g m o a fi m a n n a U S E S a n g u u . n u n w a n E n 2 9 . 5 9 6 U 6 3 8 o w 9 2 . 9 9 . n a n E n m a c a w 0 ? : n u n 9 . 6 2 6 . . n o u n s E n n o . 5 o m > 3 8 ? g fl c g fi g fi D a n n a O m E g g g . m g « E $ 3 3 w a n n a b e . n a - E w m m o u H m o n g e 5 . u a fl n B . 5 9 . « B E E ; o n S a i g o n 3 8 3 $ . u w a g . a h a S c o u r S E € 3 5 8 E u g e n . m a fi a 2. 9 3 5 £ 5 3 3 5 . g s . fi n i s h .. . 5 > u v m = § a H u i n . 9 , m o c m N o a m . M o o q n e o n . n a p e “ N o 2 . v. 3 » . “ B u . w a n n a ; 9 . 3 g b a g g e d E S E ” . > 3 5 ? me ? E U S fi Q Z w h o a ; 0. 0 : : o m b u g . m 5 » > E u o = w n m E w a n ” 0 0 8 3 » “ 8 ° 8 M o m u v 9 8 E g a n g . E E Z Q H .. g m m m m b w u ~ 5 9 5 an S p a m O m E g fi Q E E - u . 5 a m 8 g e n H a u n t. E m m a . 3 5 . 8 ” F E E 3 3 0 . w N A B : 8 5 . 3 E m " m a n g o » o n m 5 E m a c s m a n g o ? m u n g g i fi fi u g o o o w E E - n g fi fi g 3 0 2 E k E m m a H . 9 3 9 . 9 A 3 . S a n 8 E n : $ 3 9 9. 3 2 ? S S H m m m n m o u 3 & 3 . n u m o n o n w n m a g o . a g g w fi . M u g a m m o N E on E w a x ? E m a . $ 3 3 5 8 . E n . 9 % G s 5 m a a a u a : 5 8 @ 5 anE . me 8 3 . 3 3 5 § qu 9 3 3 2 . a m fl a fi m o u Q 5 . 5 3 a E u E w e w n m u o fi m w fi m n fl o d fl sz m fl 8 . 5 2 % . on an m m m u m o u a w g o E m : m a 5 2 5 % “ m pg 5 . " H m m a n a m m o n fl E n n i s . “ E n E u g e n “ E m . c m ? a w n fl o s fi9 5 8 w B E B E m m m a m o u u n n a m m n u n u n c o o m fi fl w e n E n g “ E & u u n n mF 3 5 2 9 " a fi - E m ? ? ? E fi c a - o o E E E u . E m u 8 m e g a " E m u “ 2 3 3 3g a m g fi a u m a fi a n u 3 . 3 5 5 % 8 0 . 3 5 m o i u s a g e . “ o b S E E S " u n a n n fi E a m o n « S E E E g a n E A E 8 E m a n c 3 8 3 S a u n aO W N S . £ 8 3 ; m a n B a a “ m a d a m E 8 9 . 8 . c u 8 & 2 , a m n i o n . E S E > 9 0 3 . 0 8 6 8 . 5 5 b u m m - m n fi d a O m a n . H a g H 3 » 8 H a w~ 3 3 A m g b h a o fl a w. m n v E m Q S E 8 0 8 3 % ch u v .N a g g i n g ng o a E S a n g o : 8 & 2 m m m w m o n S m ? . n n fi u n i o a m H 8 3 8 3 F w a n : H a n a m fl a a n m c a n o n S a g a 0 3 5 9 m m “ E v i a n “ H u mE g g « g e m m o a n u n i o n E m a 3 2 5 n m £ 8. 8 3 " E 5 E g o : « E R de o a u h . 3 8 3 3 . 0 E E E E 0 3 3 0 . 5 G d 8 m a g m a . ~ 3 3 n a g> 3 0 3 H a w . $ 3 8 w a g H 3 5 g a n g 3 3 3 $ E m a g a m e ” 8 E s E S E » w a n n a B E g u m EN o 9 . E . E a H a n a n o n u m n n E v i a n ; m : m a m a s “ B u E s a u a o » . E . E m a fi m D o g m a O m . a H 5 3 . g r r n m E 3 m g ” a W o m a n " ? M u c u s ;6 2 . 6 . 5 5 . 3 8 E 3 G u m v E g fi m fl u g g a fl m fi w m fi g fi fi H fl a s a a b m fi m g n r . E O E ? Q a g g E O N E d o v fi w O E . m fi m fi n fi b s w Q u a :0 9 5 $ ; 0 3 0 m 2 0 4 . 0 3 3 . . G u m 8 H E S u m . 5 E 3 8 H 5 6 n o B 0 2 5 VE g g " g a g . 5 3 " E c o ” . 9 . 3 . 5 0 o r g a n » $ 3 3 § § me H u s . H & m n u E 5E n ? ? F w . B E 3 3 3 3 3 E n ? P P w . m u m a n 0 3 5 E g a n . 3 g b E m ? > 5 m on fi fi m g > n o § n w B a n g E m u 8 H E B 3 3 v g g i fi m fl u g a g 3 ‘ 1 3 an 3 8 a m m u n E o n ? E w a n o m w i n g E m a S a m o a n w a n n a 5 8 8 m m u 3 5 : ? 0 8 a m . H u n g N 3 1 . w a g E m u m é m g fi m g ’ a m g “ . 0 3 . 3 % L 3 5 3 : H a k g § § h § § A G E . 0 0 3 . m . . . m 9 . ~ 2 8 E m m u gM 3 H . M E N . N S u . g m n o : m F u E an n fi m m g . . . Q fi ~ § fi h § s § 3 m 5 5 $ . 9 . 8 9 5 g n u : A n a . 0 2 : . m 9 m 8 . S w a y . n u n G n u .G u m » G 3 . n 3 » . E u m - M o o o . M o o r “ g m . N o a m . M 8 9 m o a n . N 8 9 N O S . E m m o o nw a g i n g . r . . . “. T . . . r . . . . . . . . u . . . » m . . . . . . _ . .§ § - e . .. m a i w x n t u a w w 9 % . s u n g 8 ¥ § § w p § s 9 6 . lo E k z w a a . Q 3 . . -E m u u m o fl g o n g . A n a . n o . 3 . m g . m a . w o w . M 8 3 0 3 . 1 3 " H a a s . .. 9 5 8 3 6 ‘ “ . M u n h m u m n u fi 0 9 : 9 8 ? H a w s . E m M E R E b u s 9 5 . 8 %B E E N 8 » n u n 2 3 6 3 3 . . N 8 8 3 9 3 E ! e . 3 . 3 5. 3 . M E E S N h E E s m u H u s fi a w a n g a m i n a a n a n N u m a m s fi i h g u n . Q & -E m m w g n 5 9 . 5 A D E . G o a . m 9 m a . Z S : N 8 5 L 3 6 9 . qu N a g fi fi m o : 3 h a g . u m g r m n i u a a a n u fi b u s 2 3 a $ 5 . 5 9 . 3 3 V g a n g : E l a n a H 3 5 3 3 g a s . m u c o s a m a m a : 3 E . n o n ” . m u . w a n S u d A 8 .u n fi o u n m 0 - 5 3 2 . o : . 5 3 8 3 M a fi a g a i n b . 8 0 3 3 ? m o o n ? . E E 5 3 m g A n a . 0 3 » . m m . w fi E m a A 2 5 0 8 . E B E m a E 3 5 . »$ 8 M 5 1 3 8 3 w a g é g n g g m fi g i g g fi g g § g > § fi n fi m o o n "F u n m a - s n n M E S H g a g g i n g 9 . 5 m . E a 9 = 8 m = m 3 3 3 2 . ~ 8 8 _ m a m a s E n fi fl fi u a n > 5 9 3 } w n o u F > 3 3 m a g m a " G a m m o n “ ? O o n m b a u m .N E E 3 . 9 a m a . . . H a n a n u m u fi n m a w o n 0 m m H o g o b g o n a d E g a n : w o w e dD u g > 5 4 0 > m 3 a n u A 0 0 8 5 M o m m y a m i a w fi u g a fi x 6 3 8 . . “ u H Z w m o a n a a m m u g s i n n G E E . n w n u a s c n n G m u v h o w E H 3g a g . w a g 3 3 5 % o n H 8 8 3 5 . H a n a n A O E E > 9 3 an $ 0 8 2 . 2 . E H a n a w e i g h m a n n a ?E B ? m g m u n . m fi - m a u n m u a a 9 H 8 . $ me . W m fi g a m . w a g m a m a a 3 8 : 8 3 . M a n n “ 3 . H a m m - m e i b n u w a n n a § § - Q b m a m a . g n o u C o g n o u S m C w de H fi $ 4 3 M g a g . b a n g . w o o fl a n . » m a n n a . n a m e s . » « 3 8 w e . O r g ? w o m a n o m 9 . 3 3 0 3 . 0 9 : 9 9 .. » W E E h a u l b u m m u fi n o n m a g s E g b d g E c fl a g m fi m h o g a n n . g B S C M a : g . g b u u a w b m u n fi : a o m g e . G E E S E u g e n “ Q § e § § u3 3 8 m m 0 2 5 3 . 3 u u c O n w w u g e . E a : G 9 Q . . . $ an m u m a h a « u m 0 9 : 3 ? c. § § § n § n § m fi $ 6 .. . e s 9 . ~ 8 3 fl u 3 m 3 m n a e 1 . . h t . U . 2 0 3 v S N 0 3 $ ng w a - Q § 3 r § a E e h m n fi u g h ? s 0 2 3 ? 9 . 3 . 9 . h g m m a a . A M S S a w n 0 3 5 3 1 5 m a m Q n fi n m n m m u. g n a w b u g 5 h r ? z . L $ 3 ? N a g 9 E 8 .. . . E 6 3 8 E a c h ; a m . a . Q E - G u a w o o 9 m g . G 3 b a g s u n i s . « ku 8 8 . 9 : 5 3 $ 8 . 3 3 . . . . 6 3 6 3 M ; b a h ». s g 0 8 5 . B E E : A . . m a m a s 3 2 2 a m . . H . . .g m V E E R S : € 3 3 5 . 6 3 Q u i n . .. h a . e . m a n ? “ h S S u n u Q 9 . 4 . . _ A 2 6 . 0 E . N 8 8 N u n m . m c g h n m 8 . a fi u m fi a Q B N 8 3 8 m w o n . > 3 “ . m u n _ . . _ . o . _ ‘ . .. . . . « . . . . . 3 f . REWARD M. PEARL Page S Repmantafive Reported {1am (cunt) Mammy v Prentice (2001) 25 Cal. 41h 572 Graham v. DamierChrys-Ier Com (2004) 34 Cal. 4‘” 553 11mm y. Boardafnmuanm'u gram; (2005) 132 Cal.Appm 359 Ketch»: v. Moses (2001) 24 Ca1.4th 1122 Kievlan v. Dahlberg Electronic: (1978) 7s Cal.App.3d 951, cert denieda979) 440 U.S. 951 Lealaa v. Beneficial Cahfbrm‘a, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19 Lewis v. Califimia Unemploymem Insurance Appeals Board (1976) 56 CaLApp.3d 729 Local3-93 etc. _v. Donovan (N.D. Cal. 1984) 580 F.Supp. 714, Afl'd (9d: Cir. 1986) 792 F.2d 762 Mangald v. CalwrniaPublic Utilities Commission (9th Cir. I995) 67 F.3d I470 Marta P. v. Me: ‘ (1937) 43 Cam 1281 Mamie'z' v:Mlbp (ND. Cal. 1976) 411 F.Supp. 5,mum Cir. 1977) s73 F.2d 555 McQueen. Camervm’orshipg (2014) 59 Ca1.4 602 (mgued for amict‘ curiae) McSainebodieb v. Burlingame Elementary School Dist. (9th Cir. [990) 897 F.2d 974 Rim M. PEARL P3386 Representative Reported Cases (cant) McSambadie: v. SanMateo City School Dist. (91h Cir. 1990) 897 F.2d 975 Mama v. Lexmark International (2013) 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 6684 Mnarev BennaAmerx‘ca Cir. 2007) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19597 Moore v. Bmk afAmerlm - (SD. Cal. 2008) 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 904 Alum v. ChmMm; btc. (SD. Cal. 1999) 1999 U.S. Dist. LEGS 10752, 5 Wage &Hour Cas. 2d ml“) 1122. Nadquahmv v.MamMarcus Group (2614) 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 697s Pena v. Samaria:- C’owtafKern County (1975) 50 CaLApp.3d 694 Poms v. Tulare Caumy Hausingduthm‘ot (ED. Cal_ 1375) 389 F.Supp. 635 Ramirez v.‘ Ramon (ND. Cal. I999) 1999 U.S. Dist. LEGS 20544 Mm-WarCm (1979)24mm 93 (anions) Sokalowlv. County ofSanMateo ' (1989) _21_§ Cal. App. 3d.231 S.Eifirqtqaj: r. M314“ ‘(Im)’ 1'7mad 719 (minus) Tangnl-v. User; (9th Gr. I979) 601 F.2d 1091, on remand (N.D. Cal. 1953) 575 F.Supp. 409, rew‘dG’fi Gr 1985) 762 F.2d 727 .(rlt .zh'g _ RICEARBM. PEARL Page 7 Representative Raported Cases (cant) ?h'pp 9. Straw (I976) l7 Cal.3d 671 (amicus) United States (Davis) v. City and County ofSanflmisca (ND. Car. 1990) 74s F.Supp. 1416, qf'dmm gar»: '4-inpari submm Davis v. Cfly am'Comb!yamWen (9" Cir. 1992) 976 F.2d 1536,- modifiedan rehearing (9“ Cir. 1993) 984 F.2d 345 United State: v. CnydSan Diego (sneal. 1998) Ia F.Suppzd 1090 Vasquez v. State ofCatifbrm‘a {2008) 45 CaL4th 243 (amicus) Velez v. Wynne (9" Cir. 2007} 2007 U3. App. LEXIS 2194 REFERENCES Furnished upon request. SapEmber 313w '....;. ,vciu'uag ;:.i g fi , w The National Law Journal January I3. 201-1» Monday Copyright 2014 ALM Media Propexfiaa. LLC All Risks Rosa'ved Fmflwr duplication Without permission is pmhibited i’fiifig’ififbRm; Secfion: NLJ’S BILLIflG £93VEY; Pg. 1; Voi. 36: No. 20 Length: 1860 words Byline: KAREN SLOAN Bm‘iy . _ . _ As recently u five years ago. law partners charging SLOOO m hour ware nudim. ’Ibday, fmm-figum hourly ram for indemand parmers at the most prestigious firms don‘t raise eyebrowa-and a few top earners arc closing in on $2.000 an hour. These rate increases come despite hand-wringing over price pressums tam clients amid a Lough economy. But evenising slandard billing rates also obscure the growing pmcn'ce of dhcounta, falling collation rates, and slow march toward altemative fa: mnments. Nearly 20 percent of the finns included in The National Law Journal’s annual survey of large law firm billing rates this year had at least one pumm- charging more than $1.000 an hour. Gibson. Dunn & Chumher partner Theodore Olson had the highest rate recorded in our survey, billing $1,800 per hour while representing mobile satellim amine provider LightSquamd Inc. in ghaptw 1] proceedings. Ofcoursc. few law firm partners claim Olson’s smrpower. His rate in thatcase is neady thctwice the $980 perhouravemge charged by Gibson Dunn partners and three times the average $604 hourly rate among puma: atNU 350 firms. Gibson Dunn chairman and manag'ng partnchen Doran said Olson's rate is ”mlbstantiafly” above that afothar pumars at the firm. and that die film’s mndard rates arc in line wim its peas. ”Whilu file majoflty ofTed Olson’s work is done under almah've billing arrangements, his hourly rate reflects his statute in the legal community, the high demand far his mices and the unique value that he offers m clients given his amanxdinmy cxpcrim as a former solicitor gonna! uf the United Stains who has argued more than 60 cases before the U.S. Supme Court md has counseled seveml presidents." Donn said. In reviewing billing dm this year, we tool: a new approach. asking aach firm on the NU 350-our‘survoy of the nation's 350 largest firms by mummy headcount-to provide moi: highest. lowest and swag: billing rates for 38mm and partners;We supplemenlad (hos: data through public moods. A11 together. this year’s survey includes information for 159 of the country's largest law firm: and reflects billing rates as of October. The figues show that. even in a down economy. hin'ng a large law firm remains n pricey prospcct. The median among dxe highestname: billing ratesmpomd at eachmm is $715 an hour. while the median low partner raw is $405. Fur associates. :he' median high stands ag$510 and the low at $235. The average associatem ls $370. Mulfiple indumy studies show that law firm billing rates confinued no climb during 2013 daspite eHorts by corporate counsel to rain them in. IYMem'x’s 2.013 Rae! Rate Report Snapshot found that the avcragp law firm billing rate increased by 4.8 parent compamd with 2012. Similarly, the Cents: for th: Study of the Legal Profession at the Georgetown University Law Ccntm' and Thomson Reumts Pea: Monitor found that lawvfirms increased their rates by an average 3.5 percent dun'ng‘2013. Rlchard Pearl E m a u a u $ . 0 8 w o n E O E. H u n . " w a n > 3 3 5 " Z E E E - E E E H 3 6 : n u n . a c . E 8 8 3 $ 8 E n ? o m 8 E 3 . B E « E a E m a n s 2 . u n u fi “ 9 . . . E 8 3 8 5 H o m o “ . 2 c m " o m o u w B E E ? E u . W E E “ R E E F : E a m é a o a a n o n “ E n u n a fl s m w n o m = 6 1 " E m m a m u m a . u E E u E E n ? u u fi g n u w h o a a w @ 3 3 3 m : B S 8 E R G m u 3 8 3 E “ E u o : 5 6 3 % . g m B E n G o n g s : 5 3 . . 4 : 5 : 3 8 2 . 3 9 % n 2 E n g # 2 5 3 2 8 E 8 : 8 8 ; E m a m . = 6 B m z n a g 3 8 W E 8 n u b. $ 2 . 3 3 . : 3 5 . E m u 5 8 . 5 % 8 5 a . w E u r o : u fi fl m i n fl m u s » E n 8 : 8 2 5 2 % E u 3 3 m m 9 . 9 . 3 . 2 . 8 o m “ E a r n m a n E 8 8 5 m . . . E a Q 3 2 2 5 . 3 H 5 : 8 2 E . s a c E g g . “ E a E : E 3 2 . 8 o n o o n 2 5 n o n m a n n B u n a E a E a o n 8 3 . E a 8 : 3 8 " . a n g i n a 3 8 $ 5 a E n 3 w a n n a F 4 9 : H 0 9 9 . 5. 2 % . E s 9 . 5 “ w a fl n 3 8 £ 9 E n a u g a u m E n . S o u B u n . " E E G 8 8 : 8 " 2 . 5 E : 2 : 0 5 3 . m a d 3 E . " g u n m a n . £ 5 S a u n a “ E n m 8 ». 2 2 5 2 . H a n n a . d i n m a n e . “ E m m a 5 n E d a m : - o n E u H u m " : S E N S 3 8 3 g 8 S E E S ? F & S E R F a u n ? “ n 2 3 ! “ w o n w n n z m o n s o o n . @ 3 0 3 5 . B a n 2 a 9 6 8 8 a . $ . 5 3 n 8 : 9 : £ 9 E n E 9 o n . n 4 E : 8 B E E S a 8 3 E : i s . E : w . » E S Q = 5 » B K 0 m g . S E E r n 2 . a u n o fi fi t u n a 9 . = 3 H E o g n a w 3 5 . . . . E o n 5 m m . . . . . . . N o c w w n u u n a . a 8 3 5 . 9 3 £ 9 E n N o s m y n fi fl. 9 . 9 . ? 9 2 6 . 5 8 S : E : 3 E m . - B m a 3 3 3 . n 2 . S E E ; E d n a E S Q n E S E fl a g . S w a g : n F e m a . a n : a n : - u E d a . 4 9. r u n g s “ n 8 3 S E E. u m u n . 9 1 Q . n a n E g a n a n a n ? 9 : 8 5 9 w e a n o n . J 5 8 ” W E E r 3 6 m o n o 8 a 3 5 . 2 2. $ 5 8 3 . S E £ 5 » m u $ 3 3 3 5 E . s m v w m a o u n - E S E u . 5 8. u o o n a o n é w n o n E a u = 5 2 3 8 E b » E m o a t ? w a n n a . m 3 : . 5 u n i . 3 o : o n E n E 8 2 5 5 . 5 3 9 5 2 E n « B R n u n . £ 5 : 3 5 m 2 E 0 : 3 3 H o m e m a o 3 8 9 g u n m a n 3 E . w . . . E a m o n ; - fi u o E E E - n E w a n . “ u . 9 n S E E E a 3 : 8 5 3 “ E m u “ . m a fi a . . . “ £ 5 3 . 7 3 n o n g n a w B a E 3 2 5 8 E u € 8 3 “ m o S E E » : 5 2. B o n n E u : a m m o “ . E u H u s. m a ; 3 5 n > 5 b u s 3 9 . 2 : c a m p s . 5 5 3 2 . 8 5 : 3 6 } 3 : 5 . .. “ o m W E E E . m a g 3 : 0 5 . 1 5 6 9 . 8 8 m a n s . n o n E a B H E . m i n i m E a s e ? E m u u fi a. B E . a i m N O E O m g a g d fi a fl a u m n n ? 8 8 ¢ g S 5 3 : 3 . 3 : 3 a 5 . 5 a . . E n g 0 3 3 _. = Z n . . . < 9 . . . " r u n E n E g o n » 5 6 9 % E 3 5 E a 3 3 % an 5 5 5 B a n . a n m a m » E a m u n ? g a n g ? E 5 4 2 ? a g a i n : 3 u n w o n a E a 5 9 . 0 E » : u m R 3 8 ” o m 3 3 5 3 a F a w n 2 o : 4 2 . x m a s n s u fi n 2 . 8 9 3 . . . 5 9 . 2. B o a m a n c a n v a s E a E E E i o n ? € 3 3 . 6 8 : « E E a a n a - E E S . n 5 o n 0 E. E 2 8 : E E - u fi n fi a a _ E w E n m u E g a n « E m n 3 9 8 8 3 9 8 fi n e . $ 3 . 5 a w p fl n a n E n u m o « m a E 0 2 8 % n u n B E B E g n u . H a E B h u m a n ? m p g c g “ B 2 5 % « m a m E E K E n 3 6 3 m “ E m a n m n fi H E F « 8 r . E & u m E 3 g o n n a “ 3 8 $ ? o n n a n n o n B E . g a m e. H E g u n m a n n u E . w o r s n é o a u n a . H E B " . E u n n o : n u n £ E g = u u m a n g o : E w a n 3 3 a m : a 6 8 5 3 3 3 8 » . s u m o H m o n g » E o E m E n F a e. B E u B qu B n E ~ 5 3 8 : 5 5 & 2. E m u E E G 8 fi n u a n m i c a » . a : E m a £ 1 . a s a w m 2. F E n a g 8 = 9 5 3 8 » . E n g E S E n o F H E B n o m u m u n s e a m a n u a l a a m a s s E d 8 E o n W E : N n a u t g u fi E E . m . . . » m a n n a ? “ E o n . B fi m p s u é s n 3 u s : 8 E n g S a g a ! 8 a m B E E u 8 8 8 m g . 3 9 2 E d a m 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 3 9 3 m a m “ m a i d . . u n w E n a c m e : 8 R o o m E S » n u n . a n E n . E E 2 0 8 8 3 . E u 2 » : qu H u i . 5 5 3 : E l n a 0 3 : 5 5 2. 8 “ o m E n F a n g d b . E a m n u u 2 3 8 8 5 o E m ? E s e a 2 6 8 % 3 8 . n o n m g E n é w u o n m u fi u . e r a z : E w a n - H a u o u n o a n 8 m a E = E v - m E d n u . o m 5 0 a m m o . . . » ” E m a F t W E B “ E n 2 E m u s 8 E g a n i ” E m a c m g n a w S E E 3 8 ¢ m 2 . v . 3 5 : E a 9 3 ng E a w 0 9 5 : 2. M S m . w e n W E E E n " n 3 = 2 u n u fi u . n n E 3 E . E 8 - 3 2 . 6 m i n i n d a g o 8 3 3 g b " E E _ fi é n o 3 8 n a n c g a d u - E E K 8 8 a m . F 8 8 - 1 5 6 E 4 0 3 8 - n E . H u e 0 - , . E n H H S ; w u c E m a : m a m . m a g i u m » . . . $1.000'Per Hour Isn’t Rare Anymore: Nominal billing levels rise, but discounts ease blow. Rags data include averages, highs and lowmes for parmera and associates. Inform equivalent (FIE) attorneys at the firm and me city of the firm's principal or largm office. We used these data to calculate averages for the nation as a whole and for selected citics. Billing Rams at the Country’s Priciest Law Firms Hate are the 50 firms that charge the highest average hourly rams for1mm. ' Fufl-Iime eqdvalcnt att’u'mey numbers and the largest Billing Rates at the Country's Prideat Law Firms FIRM NAME LARGEEVERAGE WM 0.5. FUIL-m HOURLY HOURLY OFFICE' EQUIVALENT RATES mm ATTORNEY? Page3of5 ation aha includes themge fnll-time AVERAGMW_ LOWAVERAGEIIGH LOW 2013. For complete numbers. please see NLLcam. "Fimdidnotexistinmiaramrmmemfimym. Debcvoise & Pumpnm Paul, Weiss.Md, Wharton & Garrison Sheldon. Alps. Sim Meaghan-& Flam ‘ FM. Frank. Hams Shivera Jacobson Latham & Watkins Gibson, Dunn &Cm Davis Polk a Wardwcll an'e Farr k Gallagher Cndwalnder, “Mam '&M Wu'l. Omahal & Mange: Quinn Emanuel Urqnhm a Sullim Wflni'u'Cufler Pichuing Hale and Dun- ' Decker! Andrews Kmth Hughes Hubbard & hall k Ménell'a Wmafis'e New 615 York New 803 Yuk New 1.735 York New 476 York New 2.033 York New 1.086 York New 787 York New 540 Yodc New 435 Yod: Ncw 1.201 York New 697 York Wnshingtmflfil New 803 York Houston 348 New 344 York [m 164 Angels! New 746 York New 1,900 Yatk $1.055 $1.040 $1.035 $1.000 $990 $980 $950 $930 $930 $915 $890 $890 $890 $880 $875 Richard Pearl $1.075 $1.120 $1.150 $1.1 00 S 1.110 $1.800 $985 $1.090 $1.050 $1.075 $1.075 $1.259 $1.095 $1.090 $995 $975 $950 $1,050 3955 $490 $760 5600 $845 $620 $930 $595 $895 $605 $765 $590 $850 $615 $790 $580 $800 $605 $625 $600 $810 $410 $735 $290 56703530 $745 $528 $725 $555 $800 $535 $725 $465 $100 $525 $760 $760 $845 $760 $735 S785 $615 $750 $675 $1.050 U.S. oficem frum file NLI 350 published in April $120 $250 $340 $395 $265 $365 $395 $220 Page 4 of 5 $1.000 Per Hour Isn't Rare Anymore; Nominal billing levels n'se. but diacmmts ease blow. FIRMNAM LARGESTAVERAGE PARTNERASSOCIATE US. FULIrTmm HOURLY BOWLY 0mCE' EQUIVALENT mm RATES A‘I'IDRNEYS' AVERAG-GH LOWAVERAGE-HGH- LOW Morrison & Foerstnr San 1.010 $865 $1.195 $595 $525 $125 S230 Fransisco Pillshmy Winthrop Washingtonfiw $865 $1.070 $615 $520 $360 $375 Shaw Pimnan Kay: Scholar New 414 5860 $1,080 $715 $510 $630 $320 York Kramer Levin New 320 $845 $1.025 S140 $590 $750 $400 Nmnlis & Frankel York Hogan Loyal]: Washingtmflgso $835 $1.000 $705 + - - Kuowiu, Benmn. New 365 $835 $1.195 $600 $340 $625 $200 11mm & Friedman York Kirkland &Ems Chicago 1.517 5m $995 $590 $540 $715 $85 Cooley Pain Alto 632 $820 S990 $660 $525 m0 $160 Arnold &Pm Washingmms $815 $950 $670 $500 $610 $345 Paul Haalings New 899 5815 $900 $750 $540 $755 $335 York Curtis. New 322 $800 $860 $730 $480 $785 $345 Mallet-Prevnat, Colt York k Mosle Wham a sunwn Chicago 842 $300 $995 $650 $520 $590 $425 Binghlm Mchtchen Boston 900 $795 $1,080 $220 $450 $605 $185 Afln Gump Shun Washingtnnmfi $785 $1,220 $615 $525 $660 $365 Haun- & Fald Covingtm & Washington738 $780 $890 $605 $415 $565 $320 Burling King a Spalding Atlanta 838 $775 5995 $545 $460 $735 _ $125 Norton Row NI "' NlA" $775 $900 85% $400 $515 $300 Films“- DLA Piper New 4,036 3765 $1.03 $450 $510 $150 $750 York Bmwell & Houston 432 $760 $1,125 $575 $440 $700 $275 Baku & McKnnzie Giango 4.004 $755 $1.130 $260 $395 8925 $100 Dickxmin Shapiro Wuhingtonaos S750 $1,250 $90 $475 $585 $310 Jenner & Block dlicago 432 $745 $925 $565 $465 $550 $380 Jonas Day: NW 2.363 S745 $975 $445 £435 S775 5205 Yank Mmm. Phelps & Lac 325 $740 $795 $640 - -- -» Phillips Angdes Seward & Kisscl New 152 $735 5850 $625 $400 $m0 $290 York O'Melveny &Myas Lo: 738 37l5 $950 $615 - - Angelo: McDa-mou Will 8c Chicago 1,024 $710 $835 $525 - - 3mm Raid Salim Pittsburgh 1,468 $710 $945 $545 $420 $530 $295 D'fantm‘n' . NIA“ NIA“ 5700 $1.050 $45 $425 5635 $210 leak Mango]: ' Lo‘s 126 $690 $375 $60 '~ -~ - Bagla a méhen Angela Shepp'muMunm. Los 521 sass $875 $490 5415 $535 $215 Richard Peat! PageSofS $1,000 Per Hour Isn't Rare Anymore: Nominal billing levals rise. but discounts ease blow. FIRMm LARGESTAVERAGE PARTNEmOCIATE U.S. mm HOURLY HOURLY OFFICE‘ EQUIVALENT RATES RATES A'I'I‘ORNEYS' AVERAGMGH IDWAVERAG-GH LOW Rich”! & Hampmn Angela: Alston & Bird Atlanta 805 $675 $815 $495 “fl $575 $280 THE FOUR-EG'URE CLUB THE FOUR-FIGURE CLUB These 10 firms posted ch: highest parmer billing rams. Gibson. Dunn & Camber 51.800 Dickstein Shapiro $1,250 Wilma Cutler Pinkm'ng Hale and Dot: $1,150 Aldn Gump StraussHma Feld $1.220 Kasawlm. Benson. Torres & Ffiedmm $1,195 Monison k Fomrer 3!.195 Sham, Alps, Slate. Masher & Flam $1.150 Baker & McKenzie 51.130 Bmwell a Giuliani $1.1 25 $1.120Paul. Weiss. Rifldnd. Wharton & Gazflson Contact Karen Sloan at luloan@a@.com Classificafiefi Language: BNGLISE Publicnfiun-‘lype: Newspaper Subject: POLLS &SURVBYS(9O%J;LBGAL SERVICES (90%); MAJOR US LAW FIRMS (90%); LAW HRM BILLABLE ms (90%); LAWYERS (89%); LAW PRACTICE (39%); LAW FIRM BILLABLB HOURS (78%); ECQNowc QONDH'IONS (76%); conpomm COUNSEL' (7395i; U‘s CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY (73%); LAW COURTS a: TRIBUNALS (58%); SATELLITE'lECHNOIDGY (67%); SUPREME COURTS (63%) Company: GESON DUNN & CRUTCIM LLP (93%); LIGHTSQUARED NC (83%) bldwtry: NAIC8541110 OFFICES OFLAWYERS (93%); SICSIll LEGAL SERVICES (93%); NAIC5517410 SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (83%): NAI05334220 RADIO & TELEVISION BROADCASTING & WIREIESS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING (83%) Geognpllic: UNITED STATES (92%) Lnnd-Dnhe: Jamnry 13, 2014 Richard Peafl g m . m Law Firms Raise Rates, but Ease Blow With Discounts - WSJ.com Page l 0f4 W L 1 J I I mmm, LLB. EDITION 1m,Am E. 2013 As «4:40 FM EDT ,- ‘ I Home Wand U.S. g Bum“ i 'l'ach Marian: Mulmflau Vauruogmy amnion Ufotcmmm My aw 55m l 5-minu- Economy Hunh Law Mm HanIu-monl Medinamrkeflna many s-nulBu-iruu Bum» [no m Mamaumm , 2m: ' '} nun: g i Effii'l‘oyuda. Driver EATaps Inside;- . . g 'mea'rcle'Talws xf I New Touch. for i Glob 1 Andrewwjhonas 5, I Vengeance on g; Igif . iPhone "M“; onpanm'on, Dies at : i Googla.Facebook .l! 1:“: MW i AME. Nfluflapm. ET On Sale: The $1,150-~Per-Hour Lawyer Lawyer Fees Keep Growing, HutDan'tBeh‘eve Them. Ctx‘mmAre Demanding, and Getting. Discounts ! .I If Ante!- g vim suckcum- Oommnmw i umsmuw, .' '.. . .1 1......- By JENNIFm SMITH Top partners at iaadlng U.s. law firms am warning more than everbefcre. yet those houfly rates aren't all thay appear Io be. Having’biown pas! the once-ahoeklng price tag ofsmno an hour, some sousht-afier deal. tax and tn'al lawyers are commanding hourly fees ofs1 .150 or more. according to an anaiysis of Imam Martens llrlulfluu. rnallnfl' LMI ,.. ..__._._ E bming rates compiled from publicfillngs. Topm5 mmum u 3_ l”,mm am amino But, as law firms boost their standard Tflmmgflgfikgfiwwgflg rates. manyam sanenlng [ha blow wflh me.Malmumm ho. Jamie:8mm widespread discounts and wrime-offs."W“W“WW mennhg fewer dlents are paying mu freight. As a result. law firms on average am actually collecting fewer cents an the donar. compared wilh their standard. or “rack," rates, lhan they have in years. Think of hourly fees "as me equivalent ol' a slicker on the Ir at a dealershlp.‘ sald legal consultant Ward Bower. a prlndpat a1 Allman Weil Inc. "It's the beginning of a negoflaflon...LLaw firms lhlnk may ara swing the rates. but clients are the ones datennlnlnu what they‘re golng to pay." StarEwen still can fetch a premium. pn'aa. The number of parlnars balmy Mont"; onMPH. ShukmShawn m False N Wham Wfldflmflmm mm amino“! and some of them won't budge on w mm; $1 .1 50-plua an hour has more than More In Law duubbd since mls flme last year. --- ... aconmlng to Valeu Partners. a Chm“mw’m‘ I'm" m”M consuiflng firm Ihalrnahtalns a dambaae cf legal rates puned from POPUW NOW - WWII” court fiflnga and other publicly dlsclosed 1 Wm Job’ ' Information. More than 320 lawyers in Growth Is ms nrm adummyHim ' puniupm‘m the firstquarter ufzma up from 158 a year earlier. . I . httpzllonlinewsj.com/article/SBI 0001 424 127887323820304578412692262899554.11tml 9/18/2013 Law Firms Raise Rates, but Ease Blow With Discounts - WSJ.com That glided a'rcle indudas lax experts such as Christopher Roman of King a Spaldlng LLP and Todd Maynes nf Kirkland & Ellis LLP. inlalladual-pmpeny partner NaderA. Mousavi of Sullivan 8: Cromwell LLP. and deal lawyers such as Kenneth M. Schneider uf Paul, Weiss. leklnd. Wharton a Garrison LLP. Those lawyers and their firms either declined to comment or didn't repiy to requests for comment. When mama ma] dapanmantg may; trusted hand in fend off a hostile _ _ Iakaover or win a armal mun bank. few general munsals will nilpidt awwheiher a key lawyer l5 charging 5900 an hour or $1.150 an hour. Butfar legal maflers when their Mute Isn't on the line. mmpanias are pushing for-and winning-slgnlflcant price breaks. “\m almost always negotiate rates dawn tram the rank rates,“ said Randal S. Mld'I. general counsel forphone glamW Inc. The mun, he said. Is a "not-lnaignlflmnl discount." Far me bread-and-bulterwork lhal many big law firms rely on. haggling has become Ihe norm. Many clients arqw aqqusgymgq ta pushing back on pn'ca during the recession and continue lo demand'disfdoums. Some companies imlst an budgets for their legal work Ira firm bilflm by the hour exceed! a set cap. lawyers may have to write offaoma ofthatflma. Other dlanls rafuse to work with firms who don‘t ulscount. lopplng anywhere {mm 10% to 30% offthelr standard tam. Some may grant rate inausss In lndeual partners or assodates they deem worthy. Anothartaeflc: locking in pficaa with unwed mulfiyaar agraemanls with formulas governing whether cients grant or ramsa a requaaad rate Inmase. tn pmoflml henna. that means tha gap halween law firma' sucker puma and Ina amomt 0f money they amually hill and called from lheh' cllents Is wlderihan ll has been In years. Accordlng to data collec'hd byThomson Reuters Peer Monitor. big law firms raised melr avemga standatd me by about 9.3% over 1h- past mree years. Bul lhey weren't able to keep up on the collection side. Where the Increase over the lame period was jun 6%. Flmn: that used tn Dolled an average about 92 cents for every dollaroi standard time their lawyers worked In 2007. before the ecanomic downturn. now are getting Iass than 85 cams. "That's a historic Iow.‘ said James Jones. a sanlor fallow lg me Center for mefludy oflhe Lesa] Profession at Georgetown Law. To be sure. things have canalnly ptfl'ad up some since the recesslon. When some dents flat-out tafuaed to pay rate Increases. In lho firs! quarter of2013. the 50 tap-gmssing U.S. law firms boosted heir partner rates hy as m'uch a3 5.7%. amine on average between $319 and3m an hour. awardlng to Valao Partners. Rates forjunior lawyers. whose labors have lung been a profit engine fur malor law firms. jumped even more. While some clients resisted using associate hwyers dudng the dawnlum. refining to pay hundreds of dollars an hour for lnexpefienced mst- or second-ysar ammeys. the larger; U.s. law firms have managed to send the needle back up again. This year. for the flrai time. Iheavenge rate fur associates wlln onem fouryam ofWm ragsgglg $500 mhcq, according to Valeo. The lnqeasea conflnua lha upward trend of201 2. when legal fees in general wse 4.8% and amdata bllllm ram rose by 7.4%. according to a coming report by TyMatdx Legal Analyfia. a unitaim;mm +0.95% land GEE. a research and advisery-servlces company. Those numbars are based on legal- :pendlng datafiom morg than 17.0w law films. hup://on1in'e.jyjsj’._ddgnifaxficlexss1000142412788732382030457841269226289954.htm i Page 2 of4 Steps no Better Foot Realm 3 Opiniom‘l‘hePower arms 4' Efidkecm-d of Gun Use (bming-From NewZealand ! ‘F'T-MI-l------------- 5:1 -gwl Mam _______j ...... .........~u.-....._..._...uh»... FrauRamMumIlluln Etta?!” Mordanla Dlmnuflon. Alma! Now Club Haw. Lnam FWWM-Tpmmlmaeoml . SUPER PG Mum Tl'n Oflfiml Mu mmli-Monlwmom Mu5Wm"mm Comm. 8 «oddum em onm Imprm NewarkWm bpvala I Induwy Trends. ladla'gaLwnmmuflx-smr. Content from our Sponsors m - mm - 9mm lucruve4mm“ Ammrth-l; mamm- Grillull'ranlr: noun '- f UIMQ’HI Planardwflo 'fllwdmflnlm l midylopcpnu Vacant 9/18/2013 g Law Firms Raise Rates, but Base Blow With Discounts - WSJ.com Page 3 of4 More than a dam leaders at major law fitms declined lo discuss rate Imam: an the record. though some said privately that the Increase In assaclaae rates could be caused in part by step Incroasas as gunlor lawyers gain in seniority. Joe Slme. an antitrust partner al Jonas Day and former member ofthe flrm‘s partnership commutes. said diam don'l mlnd paying for asaaclates. as long as they feel hey are scum their money's worth. Sophislicatad diam, he said, {and ta focus an Ihe overall pdca tag for Inga: work, nol on individual mtes."'l'hey are mare eonoemed about hm many peoplem working on Ihe project and the Iotal cost of the project." Mr. Sims said. 'CII'ents want value no matter who ls on thejob." Wile a handful of elite lawyers have successfully a:akad nut {he high end-the dea: teams at Wamlell, Upton. Rasen a Katz. for example-legal experts say that diam pressum tn cnntral legal spending means most law firms must b5 considerably more flexible on price. 'There wm-always be some ‘bel the company problem where a client wil not qulbhlaabout-‘rnlu.’ said Mr. Jonas. me Georgetown (allow. 'Unforlunately. from ma law finns' standpoint, that represents a small parceniaga aims wmk" Write flu Jennrfer Smithathunmmmm Jonmumwmw Hons“ 38 Comments, add you]: u Law n OIIVSM Pick. Wln Opponumlw Abound willm Cmpdrnr-Imost Today. FM lniol www.omTlaMovusvcmn Mons!” Rah- Hfl 21M 'Mfll lhun Pram cull Up Ios‘fltoluom‘ly Payment! (8.12% APR) M.Soemfinmenmsm WarrenmCommWm8mm armadmComm WW Change yourmm5km wwwMadmfl'flMSlgnmm Th! End Of DWI? This hwn'rg mrflal cw“ [uhm I‘lh Pruidml and dllupl he".SIMMRMM Don't Miss ' ~ hp FluCm at lb:Modal nehlvlor Stormssuch! Hedi. Billlmnlrc MIMI mdunmluau TarnhmRp- ‘ Haw Gunghpe I: , film India's ' Imr- You Might Like Content from our Sponsors . . Wakhb?Woman Net i0 SellDudmfi V:Pym Immimm Scientists Luanda Emlmuet - J: '5 IIIWWflnflu‘W53 a flamm- Yb“ Gene moo American Jabs(mummw n not wanna hear]! httpzllonlinemsj.comlarficlq/SB 1 000I424 127887323 8203045784 12692262899554.htm1 9/1 8/20 1 3 Law Firms Raise Rates, but Ease Blow With Discounts - WSJ.cmn Page 4 of4 mlz‘lbwhor name Manamasun. Thm'mm Wundershouldmma anmm_ mum Mmimm-MMM ometheirawupm- damn“ Mu Madointhumdoem‘talwmmrkinash 5:13:19 jo Mw-Wm Max's DVD-rsml business in main:- umn How Remit“ Ba! AmmanArm Own cxpwtml Gama: INFOGRAPHICm 1n.Mm mama; 111:Wm Businessmm! Habit: 'chhbowllng'mlFM Add a Comment Joumn.mmumrv VlawAllOamm(m Gammnnlv lulu Ii tnummmmm g I g Log in g Create an Account § i mmlmm bmom j i fur annually. U Tlfirlflhnomymmul P123? ' .r' 5.? n . WMWflmsmflflPmm ,ulm ’ < wu’oafldaawnsukwwmmsMartmanm ' x:13 M um h mkrmiru "’f' -MabfliAmgflxdnmm.Mmm- Kammama » mmmm-s ?rrrd’m = -WWW Travel.amMm». p)- flmhzimake wile». " fie"WWI cavamae yuu-me g.» Edflom' Plekl ‘ a ‘ ~ ~. .._? Anflblollea Losinghula For'rv Sims. It's a Arc You nam-fiu-a nu400m: Steps IoHem HootEula: AgainstBuys Input selhw'sMum Jew Andean: Whn'l Natanm Lin? D DDD E] [j E] E]E: Subscribe I Login mutate» customer service Pom}, I Mamba g mess ex Futures More smears» Privacy Pansy l Adm. i App. mmmmm New! mo Malp um Pom Hm n amsirm Au g ummammm mm» Gonnau- cuwught Pulluy' I salt Your Homa Graphics E Photos 6mm Planersmm WSJMama Warm“ i M Your Indra“ Gunman Gunman: contact Dinosaur } comma Rm:mMo Topics am z rm-Ad charmComm E , Mammal“scum:Ms Guido: Mow. ado g l Frmmuug Pomona "mm Mummm g mPoem Johnna!“ mwumaamumma computing AIRmmam hup://on1ine.wsjLcom/arficle/smooomu127887323820304573412692262899554Jmn1 9/18/2013 E g g H “, « $ 5 : = 0 8 6 m 8 w a g 5 8 2 w a n w a g : qu i m 5 n E a r W o n t O n . . . E fi § i m € n fi ? Q B B P o o - i g a s g u w b o _ E o fi a w o n é a m k g . . . M Q E Q E E c b C w m n a w m m. E . _ . H E H > 3 ? F fi. U b fi k m g é m ‘ m > 2 6 E E Z Q m . E . E E I N B . E _ . E . E . E . 4 1 m H E W . E g g o m F > _ > m g m fl e m u # 3 3 8 » 3 an > 3 When It Comes no Billing Latest Rate Report Shows the Rid: Keep Ge... hug:llamlawdailyquepadcom/mflawdafly/ZOJZIWrepofl-rates-kee. .. MAGAZINE LegaLng‘ mimrs "" 'W- DiggtalEdition Egg ofFags ALM EVENIE SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISE ABOUT US FEATURED SPONSORS LAW.CGM NETWORK ISitfi 'lm MESLEWEm D ' . - ..‘ 'QELLLMEIW:cm 'itiw'.am: I D I bummMW1mm . ' The Firms. I , April 16. 20‘12' SEOIPM When It Coma to Billing. Lust Rate Report Shows the Rich Keep Gem'ng Richer Posted by sinR'mdnm Hourly musNa keep fislng-and the best-paid lawyorsm misingtheir rates hater than everyone else. Those are two ofthe hey finding containsd in the gm: Egg Rat:gm, m malys ofS7.6 billion in legal bills paid by amputations oven five-«yenr perindmdingin December 2011. The repon, released Mnnday. is ihe second sudnaflaboration batman 'Mrktrix, a wmpany thatmums and mails 2 of5 4/17/2012 10:07 AM € 5 9 . a 0 0 5 $ 8 m a i n . g u n E n W a v e : m u g : 5 n E n . - N o a u O n . g n k w a m a fl n fi i a e o v a b o E qu - u fi m a q fi o S x o fi n fi fi v n fi m m . § 9 : w c m u H E E m . 4 3 a o i o a fi a w a - a o fi a u n a m . e a E u n o e s ! " m u n g g w o fi n . E E G o 3 . » 3 2 3 8 5 8 : . » m a n i a 8 E . 9 0 $ 8 3 m g w . E n 3 5 B B S E E n E m E o # 0 2 5 2 3 2 E o n 9 . 5 9 5 E B - u n d a S o r o a d . 2 59 n " = 5 8 n o m u Q 3 : E o n n u : < 5 m a g i ? m o n o g r a m. c u. n E s w a n . “ £ 8 “ = 5 F E B E n ” a 3 . 3 6 % S E . n 3 & 3 ? « = 5 3 . > . 5 n m an a n s . 5 w w o n . . . » “ E m u . « = 9 5 E a 5 n F E £ 9 3 3. . 5 8 3 5 " F a g i n u E 9 3 3 3 . 2 E . E u m u s h 2 5 3 3 8 “ m u g s. B u : = 8 8 R E nE s a u o 2 : 5 5 6 a 5 n 5 % m a n n u g n u n g fi s e fi a n c a q s 5 3 6 5 . i = 5 a w 3 % g i g . w = 5 9 3 5 3 w E 5 2 . 3 m m ; § § qu 3 5 w n a h a n 9 6 3 . 3 8 H E 9 6 3 ? : m g E m a m 3 ? s u n R & E n : a m R E H E R m B E E " a g n s u a n u n a 5 : 5 0 3 . . . 6 an E a o n n fi E s a u 3 5 8 " e a n E u 8 E H B E B E E = 5 3 p a i n ? R a B a B o a 5 3 2 5 5 8 « 8 . 5 3 3H . 0 3 8 9 3 9 3 2 a . . . . . . 5 8 5 m “ E n 9 5 . 2 : E S a n o n . d i n g . 8 8 3 2 . c g : m u n E £ an 3 s e a s . “ H E $ 2 r 5 2 3 9 m u 8 : 5 3 5 8 8 a m S 3 9 5 1 ar g n w fi g 3 - 5 8 . H i m . ” 8 : 5 5 5. 5 2 5 : 8 . a = - g B a . . 2 5 E m u . « ¢ an 3 3 E : E n E S E : 9 8 . 5 5 u n w - 5 m s S a g a n : w . $ 5 8. 9 . S E Q . 5 a : = 5 5 3 5 : 5 5 : 2 c g ? 8 : 6 w a n . B o a S E . $ 8 : W E E a h 5 3 3 3 - 5 : fl o w n n 3 5 . . . E n 8 : 5 : 9 ‘ 5 m a n 3 9 o 3 : > 3 5 2 ¢ H 8 W B u g s ; E E a n a h . . P n R u g . » w o e n a n 3 5 5 5 1 i n " > € E o = m = n n u s “ m a n ? B a n 9 2 % ; r m # 5 3 m : E n 5 9 : 8 8 } n u n o n n n i s a g a g e . . 5 3 3 2 . n 2 5 2 5 N e : E B 5 2 a 0 3 3 E E . 2 5 6 : E a m o n = 5 . 2 3 . . 3 5 E . $ 5 2 5. ? E s ! 5 2 . 6 6 F n u n o o fi n 3 . 8 S E 3 . E u “ i = 5 ? E u 5 . 3 . “ 8 - . 5 E 3 ? “ a 3 . 8 a S € 2 . 3 9 8 . 1 : : 9. 2 “ m o o u n n r 2 5 n u s “ S a n a E. 8 1 E s a u 3 3 5 3 . g i g s . 3 . 6 m 3 8 3 » . 8 . 3 3 . 5 . 5 $ 8 R E S . .. H : n 8 3 . 3 5 fl a i r . E n g i n n E u m e m E :w . .. . . .. fi r m 5 E 5. . . .. " m a m m a u B B u B R E E 9 . 3 . 5 ? B a a 3 1 0 m . . z . . 5 5 w a n n a e u w g m m r o q w “ - 5 . . " . m c g m_ B E E n 8 2 8 3 6 m e g a ? = 5 n o n 9 H 3 n o s. o w n : 5 9 } = 3 0 8 u m = = o n 6 i n E H 9 3 . 8 ! E S E o m F a u n a . . . 5 ; ” E d . = 3 ~ 3 2 F a g s s a w } 8 3 1 3 a ? . 5 5 5 8 8 5 n E g g s. 3 9 3 3 } « S i g n . g e n a m w m P u 3 3 2 . " g a i n : N 6 3 m E - S o w . . 5 5. ? E o n 3 8 . 5 , n u 3 2 . 8 2 E 8 8 . E s . m i n E s s a c u e ” m z . F m . < 3 . .. £ 5 fl a n o va E m u h v e g a n . S n : n e g o m a m u o a - w o fi. 5 8 : 2 . 0 2 8 . 9 2 2 E g g . . 9 5 6 8 « B a u m _ . _ _ 3 & 2 B u g s : 5 g ? B E n 3 6 a n o n u n a w . B a n E n " S a g E 9 2 1 2 6 E n 3 0 . 5 % . > = u n i F W a n n a . 9 m g ? h a b a n a n a . m fi - E fi a m n o . 2 . E g o n . U h : E g o u m n m a r e : E B S 9 n . 3 5 2 3 8 3 3 % ; w e n u ” n a m i n g . E S E . 5 8 8 n u n D E R E a 9 5 : 6 3 . m u g ? v i n e g a r ? E a m 3 « B o H o E a 5 . . g m . 5 5 E . “ $ 5 E a E g a n 5 5 E H 5 8 . E S . E . 2 6 3 % B E E . : 3 8 3 9 m 3 8 3 2 . 3 . . . . a = - an m o u a o n i o 3 8 3 . 5 2 6 E a : M a o m u n = 9 5 2 9 . .. g a E a 5 3 . 9 6 0 8 7 3 S u n fi n w . 9 e 8 2 . 5 . . d 5 F a u n « E ? o e 5 5 : 3 9 0 3 5 3 5 s e e d 3 o n fi a m o m u n g . a m : H E g a n E v 9. ~ 5 5. B a g o w n s S : m a i n 9 3 . . 3 8 m : r a n . .. n u = 5 2 . 5 1 . 1 " > E B : E d n a n : n s e a a l fi 3. 8 3 : 9 an 9 n n o . 3 3 5 8 1 E S 3 8 E n 8 8 9 5 r 3 4 2 2 E a “ w a g o n : N o a m E n 2 T u n a ; u c o g " i = 5 : § w < u m ¢ a n : 8 3 u s. = 2 . .. 9 3 3 3 . 9 8 " m : n 5 n a b s . . . “ 8 5 v £ 0 3 S a n B E E » E n E m m u n 5 3 - 6 8 5 3 . 5 % $ 9 . 5 k 5 n 9 5 2 . 9 5 o n E o m u g ? m u m o a n s » 0 2 : 3 2 “ E g g ; B a a S . w a g o n : 3 m E a « n a g » ; u o - w o fi. > 3 5 9. 3 E d n a 5 2 3 8 ; E 8 » E. . 3 5 5 « n u E r a n. E a E n m : n - E 3 9 . 8 . : . 5 : 3 - 9 - R o n a . . . fl u n k » : E s a u m 5 : c a a a E a 3 0 m i n : E r 9 : 2 5 g a n g u . E s a u a n « < 5 , E m u n a i d n a n a g a i n : 5 5 3 m m e . m a i z e . 5 8 5 % . 5 5 E u : 3 8 . 6 3 3 a 5 6 ¢ 8 3 5 9 . 8 5 3 a n i m u s . 8. 3 : E R E E : c n u m 3 : 1 5 1 . 3 5 0 : n a n “ E 3 5 - . R u e u n a n fl 8 E n 8 3 0 . . » m a m a a s s » . .. d 3 R u n : a n o n 2 & 3 8 9 E m a s E a . c o w a s g o m n fi n 9 : 2 5 2 . 9 w n o u n d _ n 3 8 2 . 9 % o m e g a § § - 8 2 . 3 1 2 6 - a a o a fi o n n a u s e a w a n q v 2 . 8 . 5 E 3 8 S N o u m e a : E n « 6 2. . fi n . H E . E s a u d 5 = 5 3 S c a n 2 5 a n d u g a n u n 3 u £ § T § m 8 n E fi E n o w n s » B E E ? B a n : E m u e . m a n 5 3 ? = 3 = 3 m a c u e d ? m s . 8 5 2 . 1 2 E a 3 E 2 5 E a 2 e B E E : 2 . 3 9 3 E w a n n a < 8 . .. 9 n 5 3 % r a i w fl a 3 E ; u u u u E S F m u S a v a n n a . a _ w a u E : E w a n E u r. 3 3 5 3 5 2 . E . g a s s - m a s 3 « 8 9 8 ° a n t B B m i . 5 2 5 % o w u u G 3 : 5 5 N e n l m fl w 1 3 5 - 2 . . U 1 3 g n a w i n g E S E 9 3 E g a n s a u n a 3 g B a a 5 E . 3 . 8 a. E r a . . . a = - E M o : . m z n E & a a u v a s e : o w E a 5 2 2 5 8 . 5 3 3 . 5 0 3 8 8 9 2 2 5 ; 7 . 2 8 : n g g i fi. 0 2 - 5 3 . = 6 < B n 3 £ o 1 € § n n § 5 5 n « W a i n g a n g E m m n n u r o fi B E m a s e d a n . 3. 5 a n a n . 2 6 % v e g H $ 2 . 2 3 . . . “ o m e n s . 5 5 . a l u m . E m u . . . " 1 5 0 1 8 . " > 2 9 2 n : E n e m a . .. 5 E . 8 u n a n a n : n i w o a a 5 6 2 - a fi w fl : n : n a m n i n e : = 8 “ m : g a m m a Q u a o n i o n ". 3 5 H E R n 2 . 3 8 5 3 . . S e i z e s 3 3 . 3 E : . 8 v 2 9 ? “ . E o $ 3 . 8 8 5 8 3 E : S n : n a n u : a n 2 3 . 3 5 . E : s a a 2 3 3 3 3 v B a a E n n m m : B o 9 5 B : H u e . " E B . 5 E n m o s n a m e s . E u £ 5 5 3 S E 8 5 3 5 . 3 2 8 3 n u n n E E u . 8 1 : 3 3 . 8 . E L E B E E < § § n o w n : n 5 8 " . £ an 5 & 3 n u m u m 3 3 - 3 3 m m » n u n S a u n a . 5 2 w E g g a E h B a g . H a n n a : “ g n u . g e e g u n « $ 5 3 > 0 - 3 2 = 5 . " a s f m u : E 5 S n e a k 3 . 8 5 : 3 o E E m E c : E a w i g E 3 3 5 . 3 9 3 3 n 3 5 5 E E n E E - a m m a n a g e . r 5 5 2 - s E w a n . < 5 8 E . H . 3 2 8 Q u a . O n v 3 2 : 3 3 2 m . E n a v g. “ . 5 5 . 3 3 3 8 : 0 2 5 5 » E o n B 2 6 3 % E n E S E 3 v e i n fi w . E a u q w a g o n » E v 2 . 5 5 . m e 8 5 1 5 . 8 ? E n g . " ~ 8 2 . . . » 8 3. 3 . a b o a s : o w n s 5 * n o . 6 o n . 5 3 . g u n 2 . 5 . 3 5 5 3 E g g : 5 . 5 . s a x u E E n u E qu 3 R a fi » . E @ F a l s fi c 9 : a m a n m fi s lw ra n k ? . H E M T IE ; m N o . E fi n 6 9 5 8 8 3 x 3 8 . " o fl fi t o 8 3 3 2 . : 8 H 5 > 5 r 2 2 D 2 , ? d z m a r s i n t n a g : a g a r a E n m u m m v n n m n u . 4 5 m E E - u w fi fi b fi fl fi n E c o n i u - e E E E n E E r r a t u m ? A h d n e u 5 6 3 w : When 1t Comes to Billing. Latest Rate Report Shows the Rich Keep Ge" httpd/amlawdailytypepadcom/amlawdaily/ZO12/04/report-rates-kse... Comma! By Publicus - Agni 12, 2012 at llzg'g AM Verify your Comment Previewing your Cnm'ment Posted by: l “this is only a pmview. Your cnmmcnt has nol yet been posted. g'_"§25_§_j'_"_"s&i “-Itt- Your eonmI-cm“could not be posted. En'm- type. Your commenl has been saved. @mmenls arc modulated and wit! not appearunu'l appmved by the author.W Tn: imam am numbns you unwed a'ia not match the Image. Please fly spin. As a final step before postingymxrcommnnt enter the [alters and numbnrs youm in Ill: inlay below. 1111‘s prevents automated pmgnms fi'om posting Comments. Having trouble readinglhis imag? Vmw nn slicing; Post a comment Ifynu haw a TypcKay o: TypePad account, phasegm Hump......-" ... -.--muu..-_._.._._._._., l.--.-.4.-....-.... ...-...»...»..u_...__.____.-. I .’__.__“.__..-. ....."w. .....__._-....i 5 Remember personal infi? Commas: n . . ...- . ...-14......- -_...._ .... - . . .. Popuhr Pays 'Ibday 132 Wm 10 m 4 ofS 4/17/2012 10:07AM EXHIBIT E SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALEFORNlA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WILLIAM R RIDGEWAY FAMILY RELATIONS COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 05/23/2012 TIME: 10:23:00 AM DEPT: 125 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Kevin Culhane CLERK: S. Brown REPORTERIERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO: 34-2009-00054053-CU-WT-GDS CASE |NIT.DATE: 07/27/2009 CASE TITLE: Medro Johnson vs. Sears, Roebuck and Company CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Motion for Attorney Fees - Post Trial Motions APPEARANCES Nature of Proceedings: RULING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES This matter came on regularly for hearing at 9:00 am on Thursday, April 12. 2012, in Department 125 of the above entitled court, the Honorable Kevin R. Culhane presiding. Plaintiff and moving party Medro Johnson appeared through counsel Christopher Whelan, Esq., Sacramento, California. and Brian' D. Whelan, Esq., Fresno, California. Defendants appeared through counsel Gary R. Basham, Esq., Sacramento, California. Upon consideration .of the papers and pleadings on file herein, together with the argument of counsel presented at the time of the hearing, and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED.ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: The motion of plaintiff Medro Johnson for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to California Government Code section 12965 is GRANTED. Such fees are awarded in the amount of $3,108,989.10. Introduction The parties to this dispute have submitted extensive briefing and documentation in support of their respective positions and in opposition to their opponents' positions. In addition to the briefs submitted by the parties, numerous and extensive declarations relating to the issues discussed below have been tendered by both sides. Moreover, each side has submitted declarations by individuals with claimed expertise in the field of attorney billing matters; these latter declarations are intended support each party's contentions regarding the calculation of the appropriate fee award in this.case. The Court h_as reviewed the entirety of each party's submissions, as well as federal and out-of-state authorities submitted. In addition, the court has examined each billing entry, as well as the entire case file, including but not limited to the briefing and evidence submitted in connection with the Motion for Summary Judgment. Each side has posed a number of evidentiary objections to the evidence and declarations tendered by the other side. With one exception. the Court denies all such objections; thg Court w_ill admit the evidence submitted by each side and accord to each item of evidence or declaration the weight to which DATE: 05/23/2012 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 125 ' Calendar No. SASE TiTLE: Medro Johnson vs. Sears. Roebuck and CASE NO: 34-2009-00054053-CU-WT-GDS ompany it is entitled. Those matters that are merely conclusory, lack foundation or which constitute improper opinion have been disregarded. The exception relates to defendants' objections to the introduction of evidehce protected by the mediation privilege set forth in Evidence Code sections 11-22-1124; this objection is sustained. The Court has not considered or relied upon any of the parties' purported settlement discussions or communications in ruling upon this motion. The defendants' request for judicial notice is denied. Analysis The legal methodology employed by the courts in determining an appropriate fee award under California Government Code Section 12965(b) is well established and is not disputed between the parties here. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally "begins with the ‘Iodestar.’ i.e., the number of hours reasoqtfibly expended multiplied by the reasonabie hourly rate." (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4 1084, 1095.) "[T]he Iodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved. (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys. (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. [Citation] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the_ litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadomed lodestar in order t0 approximate the fair market rate for such services." (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) Successful litigants should be assured of compensation that fairly covers the legal services required, and fee awards should cover all hours reasonably spent unless special circumstances render an award unjust. (Serrano v. Unruh (1 982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 632-633. 635.) The first step in determining the lodestar amount thus involves the identification of the relevant hourly rate for the attorneys involved in the case. The task is to identify a rate that represents '"the hourly prevailing rate for private attorneys in the community conduc‘j‘ng noncontingent litigation of the same type.” {Horsford v. Board of Trustees (2005) 132 Cal.App.4t 359, 394, quoting Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1 133 (italics in the original». In general, requested rates are reasonable if they are "within the range of reasonable rates charged by and judicially awarded comparable attorneys for comparable work." (Children's Hospita! & Medical Center v. Bonta (CHMQ) (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 733). The parties to this motion differ widely regarding the appropriate hourly rateS'to be assigned in this case. Supported by numerous attorney declarations as well as his own. Attorney Christopher Whelan seeks an hourly rate of $650.00 per hour. The Christopher Wheian declaration states t‘nat he was judicialiy awarded fees at the rate of $400.00 some 12 years ago, and $475 per hour in a case tried in Yolo County in 2004. The declaration states that at some time thereafter Mr. Whelan raised his hourly rate to $595.00. per hour, and that a fee claim was resolved based on that rate in 2009. Thereafter, Mr. Whglqn raised his rate to $650 a'n hour in early 2011. Numerous attorney declarations filed on be_half o_f Pgamtlff assert that this rate is well within the range of fees charged by top tier litigation counsel wuth a sugmficant history of litigation success, both in the Sacramento market and elsewhere. The Christopher Whelan declaration, at paragraphs 74-83 inclusive. details Mr. Whel_an's professional activities and accomplishments. The declaration reflects that Mr. Whelan has recelved 12 jqry trial verdicts in employment cases exCeeding $1,000,000, and punitive damage awards on eight occaSIons. In opposition, defendants contend that the rate for Christopher Whelan should be set at $450.00 per DATE: 05/23/2012 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 125 Calendar No. EASE T!TLE: Medrc Johnson vs. Sears, Roebuck and CASE NO: 34-2009-00054053-CU-WT-GDS ompany hour. Defendant's have tendered numerous attorney declarations, including the declarations of Mssrs. Basham, Gray, Gurnee and Cook. each of which generally support the rate asserted by defendants to be the appropriate rate. The Court has carefully read and considered all the declarationsregarding _the approprififie rate, together with the briefing by the parties regarding the persuasive force to be assigned to each. ln addition to the quantitative data submitted regarding market rates, the Court has also examined certain qualitative material that bears on the identification of the relevant rate. Much of this material is quoted in plaintiff‘s moving papers at pages 14-16 inclusive, but it may be generally summarized as asserting that based upon his prior professional and trial accomplishments, Mr. Christopher Whelan is recognized as " . . . one of (if not the), premier employment trial attorney(s) in the state." The declarations also establish that in 2009, the Daily Journal identified Mr. Whelan as one of the top ten plaintiff's employment lawyers in California Based upon the entirety of the evidence submitted, the Court fixes that appropriate rate for Attorney Christopher Whelan at the sum of $625.00 per hour. In this regard, the Court is persuaded that the rate represents the market rate for comparable work undertaken by attorneys of comparable skill and wofessional accomplishment. This conclusion is supported in part in the fact that Mr. Christopher helan's rate for employment litigation was fixed at $475.00 some 8 years ago; defendants' suggested rate does not even attempt to take into account advancement in rates and related facts since that time. In addition, the declarations show that an opposing party agreed to pay $595.00 per hour some two years ago. lmportantly, the evidence submitted and not contradicted by the Defendants shows that the individual as to which a rate must be set is one of the premier attorneys in the entire state in the relevant field. Indeed, Mr. Whelan has been widely recognized as one of California's most tenacious and accomplished plaintiff's employments law attorneys. The rate fixed by the Court is consistent with the declarations submitted by those attorneys who have established a statewide reputation for substantive expertise in litigation practice by compiling extraordinary records of multiple successful jury verdicts in cases involving hotly contestedrfacts and difficult legal issues. It accords as well with the Court's own experience relating to rates charged by attorneys with similar substantive ability and trial outcomes in the relevant market. While the full requested rate of $650.00 per hour is within the range of rates charged and awarded for comparable work undertaken by attorneys of similar skill and professional accomplishment, the requested rate is modified here to insure that the rate is reflective of the Sacramento market. At the same time, the‘Court is not awarding the rate thus established for all of the hours expended in the prosecution of the case. An adjustment is necessary because according to the Christopher Whelan declaration, certain services were rendered before he raised his rates in early 2011. The Court's review of the billing entries shows that of the total hours submitted, 666.4 hours represented services that were rendered during the earlier period. For this reason, it seems clear that hours for services rendered before January of 2011 should be compensated at the rate established at the time that the services were rendered, and the Court has performed the calculations to account for this fact below. The parties also differ widely as to the appropriate rate to be set for attorney Brian Whelan. Mr. Brian Whelan contends that his rate should be set at the sum of $345.00 per hour. noting that in three and one-half years of practice, he has tried or co-tried seven trials, including five jury trials. Of the five jury trials, four exceeded one month in duration and three resulted in multimillion dollar jury verdicts for Mr. Whelan's clients. The declarations in support of the requested rates assert that as a result of these experiences Mr. Brian Whelan possesses trial skilis, experience and insight normally achieved only by attorneys with many more years of practice experience. In Opposition, Defendants tender declarations which observe that Mr. Brian Whelan is a 2008 admittee. and which generally postulate that associate rates for attorneys with similar longevity in the practice fall DATE: 05/23/2012 I MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 125 Calendar No. EASE TlTLE: Medro Johnson vs. Sears. Roebuck and CASE NO: 34-2009-00054053-CU-WT-GDS ompany in the $200-$275 range. lf by "similar experience" defendants intend to refer solely to length of time in practice, the Court could concur with at least the upper range of defendants' conclusion for the Sacramento market. At the same time, fairness dictates recognition of the fact that such rates do not accuratety reflect Sacramento market rates for attorneys with significant trial experience resulting in multiple million dollar-plus verdicts. Stated othenrvise, the length of time that an attorney has been in practice is relevant because it often requires many years of practice to achieve any significant trial experience; such experience when it is acquired does not become less valuable simply because it was acquired in a shorter period of time. Based upon consideration of all the relevant fagiors and evidence submitted, the court fixes the basic rate for Mr. Brian Whelan at $325.00 per hour.[ As noted above, the‘second step in the lodestar analysis is to determine the reasonable number of hours expended in prosecuting the case. To decide this, the “basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time." (Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 395). Hours are reasonable if they were reasonably directed to furthering the_c|ient's interests, as viewed at the time the work was performed; compensation is appropriate for "every item of service which, at the time rendered, would have been undertaken by a reasonable and prudent lawyer to advance or protect his client's interest..." (Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co. (9th Cir. 1982) 682 F.2d 830.839, quoting Twin City Sportservice v. Charles O. Finley & Co., .676 F.2d 1291(9th Cir. 1982)).Once the moving party documents its claim with credible time records, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that specific time is unreasonable. (Hadley v. Krepel (1 985) 167 Cal. App.3d 677, 682). With respect to .this issue, defendants first assert that the claimed hours should be reduced by virtue of the fact that certain claims were voluntarily dismissed, either pn‘or to trial (in the case of defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co.) or prior to instructing the jury (in the case of certain causes of action). On this point the appropriate legal standards are not in dispute. Where the plaintiff in a lawsuit fails to prevail on claims that are distinct and/or unrelated to its successful claims, the plaintiff cannot recover fees incurred in pursuing the unsuccessful claims. (Hensley v. Eckerhart, (2006M61 US 424, at 434; Sokolov v. County of San Mateo (1 989) 213 Cal.App.3d 231, 247-248.) Conversely, where the abandoned claims arise out of the same common core of related facts as the successful claims the dismissal provides little or no basis for apportionment or reduction, because in such cases there is no basis to conclude that the discovery and other litigation events involved in the case would have been any different had the dismissed claims not been present. (Id., see also Guckenberger v. Boston University, 8 F. Supp.2d 91, 102. (1998); Campbell v. Nationaf PassengerRR. Corp.,718 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1 103 (2001)). With the foregoing standards in mind, the Court has reviewed the court fiIe, including the pleadings pertaining to pretrial proceedings and the billing statements submitted by the moving parties. As to defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co., plaintiff had already removed all but a few accidental entries and further conceded that the time associated with several remaining entries should be eliminated. Accordingly, the court's analysis necessarily focused on theories of recovery against the remaining defendants that were voluntarily dismissed before the matter was submitted to the jury. That review reveals clearly that in large measure, the voluntarily dismissed claims involved related theories of recovery based on the same common core of related facts as the successful claims. (See Campbeil v. National PassengerRR. Corp., 71B F.Supp.2d 1093, 1103 (2001). With the foregoing in mind. the Court has applied a reduction to the cla‘imed hours below to insure that the fees awarded here comport with the foregoing legal standards and factual findings. At the same time, it should be noted that none of the time associated with post-verdict matters should be reduc_ed qn this baijfi, because that’ time was necessarily devoted entirely to the matters upon which plaintiff dld prevail. Page 4DATE: 05/23/2012 MINUTE ORDER Calendar No.DEPT: 125 gASE TITLE: Medro Johnson v5. Sears, Roebuck and CASE NO: 34-2009-00054053-CU-WT-GDS ompany Defendants next contend that the submitted hours should be reduced because "lawyers get tired" (Defendants' P's& A's at 11) and therefore "inefficient? when they put in long days. (Schratz Dec]. at 14). Not only does the Schraiz declaration provide no factual support for this claim, but the Cqurt knows of no facts that could support 'it. To the contrary, most attorneys with knowledge of the actual legal practice know that inefficiencies often result from the inability to devote sufficiently large segments of time to a single case, not the other way arouhd. There are two additional reasons that this particular argument must be rejected in its entirety. The first is that even if there existed any factual support for the claim in the abstract (and having practiced for nearly three decades, the Court believes that there is none) the only conclusion that could follow is a generalization that lawyers as a group become inefficient when a workday exceeds a certain limit. No rational conclusion could be drawn about the attorney involved in any particular case, or about the attorneys involved in this case. Even more fundamentally, this claim fails to take into account the fact that in many instances, an attorney has no means to control the number of hours that must be committed to a case. Cases that go to trial are the paradigm example. Eighteen hour days -- one after the next -- are commonplace. To say that a lawyer involved in trial preparation or trial itself becomes fatigued -- indeed even less efficient -- is to say nothing about whether the sewices are reasonably necessary to the successful prosecution of the client's claim. For these reasons, the court declines to reduce the number of submitted hours on the basis that lawyers who work long days are either universally and/or inexorably "inefficient." Defendants also contend that the submitted hours should be reduced based upon the fact that certain time entries constitute "block billing." Once again, the applicable legal standards are straightfon/vard. To the extent that vague or block billing obscures the nature of the Work performed. a court has discretion to reduce or eliminate the fees accordingly. (See, e.g., Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315,1325.) Conversely, even when a time entry includes more than one enumerated task, the time is compensable if the time entry permits the court ta conclude that the time expended on the identified task is reasonable. (See Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 102-1 03; Sunstone Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Alameda County Medical Center (E.D. Cal. 2009) 646 F. Supp.2d 1206,1217. As noted above, the Court, has reviewed the entirety of the submitted billings as well as the court file and relevant declarations. The vast majon'ty of the billing records assign specific times to discrete tasks and even where this is not the case, the work descriptions generally permit straightfonlvard evaluation as to the necessity of the tasks and the reasonable amount of time necessary to complete them. To the extent that the Court is unable to discern either the nature of the work performed or that the time expended to perform the identified tasks was reasonably necessary to the successful prosecution of the case, the court has adjusted the billed hours accordingly. Having considered these and all the additional arguments set forth in the submissions of the parties, the court determines the compensable number of hours (exclusive of time devoted to fee litigation) for Mr. Christopher Whelan to be 2986.58 hours, consisting of 633.08 hours prior to the time that Mr. Whelan raised his hourly rate and 2353.50 hours thereafter. The court fixes the compensable number of hours for Mr. Brian Whelan (again exclusive of fee litigation) at 578.43 hours, having reduced the hours claimed to exclude travel time between Fresno and Sacramento. The resulting lodestar fees are calculated as follows: CHRISTOPHER WHELAN ESQ: 633.08 x $595 = $376,682.60 + 2353.50 x $625 = $1,470,937.50 for a total of $1,847,620.10. BRIAN WHELAN ESQ: 578.48 x $325 = $188,006. The total base lodestar is thus $2,035,626.10 ofie: 05/23/2012 MINUTE ORDER Page 5 DEPT: 125 Calendar No. gASE TITLE: Medro Johnson vs. Sears, Roebuck. and CASE NO: 34-2009-00054053-GU-WT-GDS ompany _ Finally the Court has considered plaintiff's request for the application of a 2.0 multiplier to the base lodestar determined above. The court has considered the factors that are advanced in support of a multiplier in fee litigation, ". . including (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions. involved, (.2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. {Citation} The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. ln effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadomed lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services." (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132). Moreover, the Court is aware of the cautionary observations in the applicable cases to the effect that a court should not consider these factors to the extent that they are already encompassed within the lodestar, in order to avoid unfair double counting. (Id). Having considered the foregoing in light of the parties' arguments and evidence, the Court finds that a multiplier of 1.5 is appropriate to compensate plaintiff's counsel for the contingent risk. the nature of the action, and interruption of practice. The final fee award exclusive of fee litigation is award is $3,053,439.10. The remaining matter pertains to the fee litigation, which is treated separately here because plaintiff seeks no augmentation as to the time expended in the fee litigation. The records submitted show that Plaintiff is entitled to-fees in connection with the fee application as follows: CHRISTOPHER WHELAN ESQ: 79 x $625 = $49,375.00 and BRIAN WHELAN ESQ.: 19 x $325 = $6175.00 for a total of $55,550.00. these amounts are calculated based upon the amounts set forth in the initial submittals; to the extent that Plaintiff seeks additional fees in connection with his Reply presentation etc. he may file a further motion in connection therewith. The total fees awarded in this motion thus equal the sum of $3,108,989.10, which amount shall be added to the judgment by the clerk of the court. 111The declarations tendered by Mr. Schratz on behalf of defendants were of minimal assistance in resolving the issues posed in this motion. The declarations do identify certain areas of inquiry typically utilized by fee auditors. Too often however, the declarations adopt questionable or incorrect factual assumptions in an effort to support the reduction or disallowance of various amounts claimed. Withoyt overburdening the length of this ruling, the Court's independent review of the declarations tendere_d |_n this case. causes the Court to join in the observation of an earlier court that Mr. Schrat_z partisanship Is obvious, that he cannot be described as an independent witness, and that he added minimal value to the issues to be determined in this motion. (See O'Connor declaration at 5-6; see also Miller v. Vicorp Restaurants, lnc., (ND. Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2210). The declaration filed by Mr. O'Connor on behaif of plaintiffs provided significantly more as§istar3ce, particularly insofar as it is sourced in relevant experience and otherwise provides solid ewdentgary support for the opinions set forth therein. At the same time, the Court does note that the evidentlary foundations for those opinions are found in the declaration itself; attacks on the character of Mr. Schratzmas opposed to his opinions-- were therefore entirely unnecessary. [ZIWith respect to Mr. Brian Whelan, the Schratzdeclaration proposes an hourly rate based solely up_on years of practice without respect to the actual experience of the relevant attorney. Defend_ants prowde no reason that the Court should assign a rate unrelated to the actual skills and experience of the attorney in question, and the Court can conceive of none. bATE: 05/23/2012 MINUTE ORDER Page 6 DEPT: 125 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Medro Johnson vs. Sears, Roebuck and CASE NO: 34-2009-00054053-CU-WT-GDS Company [3]” should be noted that although the Christopher Whelan declaration attributes 101 hours to post trial fee litigation, the Court's own analysis of the billing entries shows that approximately 22 hours of the 101 hour total actually related topost trial (but not fee) proceedings. Putting these hours in -th_e proper category matters, because Plaintiff does not seek a multiplier for hours expended in the fee litigation. The Court has added these hours to the "main case" total and subtracted them from the "fee litigation" total. Page 7DXTE: 0512312012 MINUTE ORDER Calendar No.DEPT: 125 EXHIBIT F @mflfimthA NNMNMNNN-l ’ < jILEDLEMmRSEn SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OFSACRAMENTO JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION Department Number: 30 PROCEEDING - Case Number: JCCP NOS. Special Title (Rule 1550(b)) 4266 & 4270 FORD EXPLORER CASES Included Actions: Tompkins v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. ?;?;;;quggséggfilsCAAgfiOElgggfiSEsS t C t S ' C‘ N . ' ofigmmego‘; mm y "pew ”u” ° REQUEST FOR MULTIPLIER; ’ PLAINnFFs' INCENTIVE AWARDS; Katz v. BridgwtonelFirestone, Inc. AND OBJECTIONS Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC279458 Gray v. Ford Motor Co. Sacramento Superior Court No.'03ASO4782 Montoya v. Ford Motor Company Sacramento County Supen'or Court No. 03A805213 This matter was heard on April 15, 2008. The issue before the Court is the preper amount of attorney fees for counsel involved this action which afier a lengthy court trial. resulted in a multi-state settlement. The parties have stipulated in the settlement ageement forpayment ofreasonable mmqmmguw 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attomeys’ fees and expenses a_s approved by the Court not to exceed an aggregated total of $25 minian. (Settlement Agreement 1r 34(e)) The Court has given final approval to the settlement. Additionally, the court ordered the payment ofattomeys’ fees and expense to lead counsel at the conclusion of the hearing on April 15, 2008 and invited other class counsel t6 submit further declarations in support oftheir application for fees and expenses. Various declarations have been submitted by counsel. 'The Court has read and considered the supplemental declarations filed since April 15, 2008 as well as the objectors’ responses to the requests for fees and expenses and the memoranda in support thereof. Counsel are entitled to fees. The proper amount offex is determined by the lodestar method. The court must determine the reasonable hourly rate and the rea.sonable number ofhours and mulu'ply them. The reasonable market value is the measure 9f the reasonable hourly rate. (SeePLCM v. Drexler (2000) 22 Ca].4th 1084, 1094) Thié rate applies regardless ofwhether the attorneys claiming fees charge nothing or a contingency or discounted rate or are in house counsel. At the conclusion ofthe Fairness Hearing _on April 15, this Court granted the following applications for payment ofattorney fees. In reaching its decision the Court considered the hourly rates aid the number ofhouis sought for the following skilled trial counsel in this complex case to be reasonable. The Court also approved expenses for the following counsel as reasonable. The Court affirms the following orders: (1) Fees for Kevin P. Roddy for servica performed as a member ofWilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in theamount 032,294,825 and expenses in the amount of $820,140.45 as set forth in the declaration ofKevin P. Roddy in Support ofthe Joint Motion for Final Approval. tooo'umomkun 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) Fees for Elizabeth Cabraser of the law firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP in the amount of $2, l 50,905.50 and expenses in the amount of$574,201 .35 as set forth in Elizabeth Cabraser‘s Declaration in Support ofthe Joint Motion for Final Approval. (3) Fees for Tab Turner ofTumer and Associates in the amount of $1,750,000. (Mr. Tumer’s request for approval ofexpenses is addressed below). (4) Fees for Tracy Buck-Walsh in the amount of$1,077,100.00 and expenses of $53,400.00 - The Court sought fi1rther briefing on the requests for expenses ofTab Turner and the applications for attorney fees and expenscs of the Barrett Law Office, Green Welling, LL.P., The Rosshacher Firm, The Kick Law Firm. Hagens Barman SdboI-&Shapiro, LLP, Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, Hurwitz Sagan'n Slossberg& Knufi", LLC. 'I;he Court also requested additional information on the global amounts requested for Illinois pIaintifl's' counsel and Texas plaintifl‘s’ counsel. The Court took the matter under submission on April 30, 2008. The Court now rules as follows on the submitted matters as follows: Turner& Associates Application for Expenses _ Mr. Turner seeks expenses in the total amount of $1,605,967.54. Of this amount $322,263.51 is an expense for private airplane costs (Exhibit B to Tab Tufner’s _ Declaration oprril 7, 2008) The Court finds all of the expenses reasonable except the $322,263.51 amount for the private airplane. No authority has been presented to this Courtjustifiring reimbursement for the use ofprivate aircrafi as a reasonable expense. ier. Tumer can demonstrate that use ofhis private airplane was more economical than alternative @mNthum...‘ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 23 2-4 25 26 27 28 commercial travel mrangements; the Court will consider allowing the expense as reasonable. Convenience to counsel or other clients is not sufficient justification. Mr. Turner explains that he used the plane to transport six or seven people and equipment on over 35 trips. However, the Court is not awarding travel expenses for 6 or 7 people, only for Mr. Turner. IfMr. Turner can ascertain the cost of travel he would have incurred on commercial flights had he made timely reservations and used that form of transportation, the Court will consider awarding such an amount as reasonable. Mr. Turner shall submit the additional information no later than July 14, 2008 or this amount will be stricken from his award to permit entry ofjudgment in this case at the earliest opportunity. The Court notes that the additional infomation should cure the defects noted by the Webber objactors. Applications of the Barrett Law Office, HurwiIz Sagarin Slossberg 8; Knuff, LLC , Hagens Barman Sobol &Shapiro, LLP, the Rossbacher Firm, Green Welling, LL.P., Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, The Kick Law Firm and Texas and Illinois class counsel Using the lodestar method ofcalculation and based on total record and the supplemental declarations filed on April 25, 2008, the Court now approves the requests for attorney fees and expenses for remaining class counsel as follows: 5) The application ofthc Barrett Law Office, co-lead counsel in the Texas and Illinois cases, is approved in the amount of$606,022.50 for attorney fees and $450,886.95 for expenses. The Court finds that the hourly ram and the number ofhours expended are reasonable. The expenses are properly reimbursable and they are reasonable in amount. 6) The application ofHurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff, LLC (Connecticut Class Counsel) i.s approved in the amount of$600,672.50 for attorney fees and $43,431.] 0 for 4 Ch m h {A N A @QN 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 expenses. The Court finds that the hourly rates of$250-$325 for associates, 3450-5475 for partners and $125 for paralcgals and the totai number of2038.7 hours expended are reasonable. The deciarations and evidence submitted support such an award. The expenses are properly reimbursable and they are reasonable in amount. 7) The application ofHagans Barman SoboI &Shapiro for fees in the amount of $304,345 and expenses in the amount of$40,1 10.38 is approved. The Court finds the histon'cal hourly rates of$425 for partner Roddy, $600 for Barman, $325 foi- associate Byszewski, $3 10 for associate Cohen, $225 for associate Horn, $130 for paralegals Scott and Bram'meier are reasonable in the prevailing markets in California, Illinois, Texas and Connecticut. The number of 749 hdurs expended between June 2003 and December 2004 when Mr. Roddy Iefi the finn are also reasonable. The e‘xpenses requested are all properly reimbursable and reasonable in amount. 8) The application of the Rossbacher firm is apprbved in the amount of $ 1,485,3 63.25 for attorney fees $183,099.44 for expenses. The hourly rate of S490 and the 2469.5 hours expended are reasonable under community standards. The expenses requestcd'are all properly reimbursable and reasonable in amount. 9) The application ofGreen, Welling. LLP is approved in the amount of $1,445,733.60 for attomey’s fees and $207,149.56 for expenses. I The 4441 .34 hours spent are reasonable. The hourly rates set forth in the time report of Green, Welling LLP are reasonable except for the $550 per hour charged for Mr. Gmen..Based on the totality ofthe record and in its independent judgment the Court finds the reasonable prevailing market hourly rate for an attorney oer. Green's skill and expen'ence is $450. The value ofhis service was not comparable to other more experienced lead counsel. The total lodestar amount for Mr. Green is $589,972.50 OGNQUI§wNA 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 ' 20 21 I22 23 24 .25 26 27 za (reduced form the requested amount of $721,077.50). The expenses requested are all properly reimbursable and reasonabie in amount. IO) The application ofKershaw Cutter & Ratinofi' is approved in the amount of 576,71 1.25 for attomey fees and 334.689.82 for expenses. The hourly rates of $550 and $650 for partners and $1 75 for associate and paralegal support are reasonable. The total number of 154. 10 hours is reasonable. The expenses requested are all properly reimbursable and reasonable in am'ount. 11) The application ofthe Kick Law Firm is approved in the amount of $1, 160,649.75 for attorney fees and $180,594.88 for expenses. The docla-ration ofTaras Kick dated April 7 2008 and the supplemental declaration filed on April 25 support this award. The historical hourly rate of$450 for c1455 co-counsel is reasonable, The 2569.50 attorney hours and 57.50 paralegal hours are reafinable. The expenses requested are all properly reimbursable and reasonable in amount 12) The Court approves the agreement to compensate Texas and Illinois class counsel based on the declaration ofDon Barrett and the supporting declarations onona Jones and Mark C. Goldenberg. The Court approves $2 million to the law firm of Goldenbeljg, Heller, Antogwli, Roland, Short & Geri RC, Illinois class counsel (Rowan Class action) and $1 million to the firm ofProvost-Umphrey LLP, Texas class counsel. The Court notes the supplemental declarations address deficiencies identified by objectors and cure the lack ofsubstantiation that was presented initially to this court _ declaring that co-lead counsel (Barrett, Roddy and Cabraser) had jointly decided these respective sums were “appropriate, fair and proportionally reasonable” (Corrected Supplemental Declaration ofKevin P. Roddy 1f 6). GimbuN-i Om-J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16- 17 1'8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '28 Request for Multiplier Plaintiffs request for a multiplier 1's granted. The Court awards a multiplier of 1.21 per cent. A number offactors used to determine a multiplier were set out in Serrano v. Priest (Serrano HI) (1977) 20 Cal. 3d, 25, 48 These include: "(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill displayed in presenting'ithem; (2) the extent to which the nature ofthe litigation precluded other employment By the attorneys; (3) the contingent nature of the fee award. both from the point ofview 6f eventual_victory on the merits and the point of view of establishing eligibility for an'award; (4) the fact that an award against the‘ state would ultimately fall upon the taxpayers; (5) the fact that the attorneys in question received public and charitable funding for the pugpose ofbringing law suits ofthe character here involved; [and] (6) the fact that the mofiies awarded would inure not to the benefit of the attorneys involved but the organizations by which they are employed." (20 Ca!.3d at p. 49) Three of those factors are inapplicable to the present case. Unlike Serrano III, this case was not brought against a public entity, the responsibility to pay a fee award would not fall upon the taxpayers, the plaintiffs were not represented by a nonprofit public interest law finn or a government fimded legal services prog'am, and monies awarded wouldmm to the individual benefit of the plaintiffs' attomeys. The Court has considered the remaining three traditional factgrs: (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature ofthe litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; and (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, both fi'om the point ofview of eventual victory on the merits and the point ofview of establishing eligibility for an award. Dfl‘dmu'lhwhl 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court believes a modest multiplier is wananted. The Iodestar amounts ' awarded by this Conn are based in large pan on historical hourly rates. Without question the issues in this case were novel and difficult. According to Defendant Ford Motor Compafiy no other class claims ofthis nature have gone to trial anywhere else in the nation: The case was complex, lengthy and dificult. A large number ofconsumers in four states benefit fi-om the result. Class counsel invested countless hours over six years in this case. The Court'witnessed exceptional skill on behalfofcounsel during the trial. Moreover, the procedural history of the class actions in four states reflects extraordinary efforts to bring these cases to resolution. The record shows that counsel worked collaboratively to avoid duplication in bringing this case to resolution. The Court is also aware that there w‘as continuing uncertainty throughout this litigation that plainti ffs would prevail on the merits. This was especially'true ofthe trial proceedings. A favorable judg'ment was never a certainti in view ofthe challenging llegal and factual issues confiontcd by class counsel. The Court is also cognizant ofthc contingent nature ofthe fee award and the fact th'at counsel has had to wait so long for any paymefit of fees and ou't-of-pocket expenses. The Court rejects objectors’ invitation to adjust the lodestar awards through I application ofa negative multiplier. Many ofthe cases relied upon by objectors are inapposite and of little guidance. Unlike the procedural posture ofthe case at bar, the: parties reached a voluntary resolution ofthe dispute afiel- a lengthy and expensive court trial and fincertain findings by the trial court. The cases cited involve settlements before class certification, shortly afler class certification, or after discovery has been initiated. Not afier the battle has been fully waged and the outcome in extreme jeopardy. QWNGDUI§WNJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 1B 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The enormous risk in obtaining an outcome favorable to plaintiffs justifies a multiplier enhancement. 'A multiplier of 1.21 per cent shall be added to each of the fee awards outlined above. Incentive Awards for Named Plaintiffs The Court reaffirms its order of April 15, 2008 awarding incentive awards to the named plaintiffs in the amounts requested. The named plaintifis in the Tompkins, Katz," Gray and Montoya cases are awarded $10,000 each. The class representatives in Illinois, Texas and Connecticqt are awarded $5,000 each ifthey were deposed and $2,500 each if they were not deposed. Conclusion In awarding l'e-ad tn'al counsel their respective lodestar requmts, the Court wishes to note the exceptional skill and experience oer. Tab Turner, Mr. Kevin Roddy, and Ms. Elizabeth Cabraser in presenting argument and evidence before this Court. Class counsel is directed to prepare a formal order andjudgnent consistent with this ruling for the Court's siglature. The order shall include the final calculations on each fee and expense award. The objections and responses ofobjectors Webber and Kirstein are resented to the extent not otherm'se expressly addressed herein. IT IS SQ ORDERED. Date: - ' . -0 ¥ ’ 7 é é 7 5 Honorable DAVID DE ALBA 3 Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento wk) damn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE BYMING (C.C.P. Sec. 101316)) I. the Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, certify that! am not a party to this cause, and on the date shown below I served the foregoing RULEG ON APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES; REQUESTFOR MULTDLIER; PLAflVflFFS’ INCENTIVE AWARDS; AND OBJECTIONS, depositing true copies thereof, enclosed in separate, sealed envelopes with the postage fillly prepaid, in the United Smtes Mail at Sacramento, California. each of which envelopes was addressed respectively to the persons and addresses shown below: KEVIN P. RODDY ELIZABETH J. CABRASER WILENTZ. GOLDMAN & SPITZER LIEFF, CABRASER. HEIMANN& BERSTEIN 90 Woodbridgc Ctr, Dr. Sm. 900 Embarnden Center West Woodbridge, N: 07095 275 Haney Street, 30'“ F1 Counsel for Pinintiffg Kat: San ancisco, CA 94] 1 1-3339 , Co-Lead Counselrorr-Iaintifl'sa the Class CTAB TURNER DON BARRETT Turner & Associates, RA. PATRICK BARRETT 4705 Somers Avenue, Suite IOD Barrett Law Office, PA No. Little Rock, AR 12! 16 404 Conn Square North Counscl for Plainlifi's P.O.‘Box 987 Lexington MS 39095 TRACEY BUCK-WAL3H HENRY ROSSBACHER ATTORNEY ATLAW JAMES S. CAHILL 6 Reyes Court - THE ROSSBACHER FIRM Sacramenfo, CA 9583] 811 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 1650 Counsel for Plaintiff Tompkins Los Angela, CA 90017-2666 Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs' Dwiyn and Mary Tompkins. Counscl for Plainfifi‘Km PETER W. HERZOG. Ill RANDALL W. EDWARDS BETTINA J. STRAUS O’MELVENY & MEYERS LLP RICHARD P. CASSETTA 275 Battery Sheet, Suite 2600 BRYAN CAVE LLP San Francisco, CA 94111 Liaison Counsel fhr Ford0n: Metropoiitan Square 2| I N. Broadway. Ste.3600‘ St. Louis. M0 63102 Counsel for Ford FORD EXPLORER CASES JCCP Nos.: 364266 E 3C1270 -1- Rev. 5/3/07 “NH uh 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 1‘) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 0m MALCOM E. WHEELER WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 3600 Denver, CO 80202-26 l7 ' Counsct for Ford ROBERT S. GREEN, ESQ. JENNELLE WELLING, ESQ. GREEN WELLING LLP 595 Market Street. Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Counsel fur Plaintiffls I, the undersigned deputy clerk, declare under penalty ofpenjury that the foregoing is true and COl'l'CCI. Dated: ’7, [Pp 8 TARAS KICK ' THEmCKLAW FIRM. APC 900 Wilshire Blvd. Suit: 230 Los Angeies. CA 90017 Counsel fir Plaintifl's Steve Montoya and Darren McLachIan CHARITY KENYON, ESQ. KENYON YEATES, LLP 3400 Cottage Way, Ste. K Sacramento, CA 95825 I Settlement Class Noticc and Claims Admininmur MQ Deputy Clerk FORD EXPLORER CASES JCCP Nos.: JC¢266 G JC4270 -2- new. 5/3/0‘1 EXHIBIT F Om q¢m A w“ w Hdhw” 15 26 17 18 I9 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 QUALLS & WORKMAN, LL13 Rubin G. Workman (Bar #1 458 10) robin@qualIs-workman.com Aviva N. Roller (Bar #245415) aviva@,quafls-wmkman.c0m 177 Post Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (41 5) 782-3660 Facsimile: (4] 5) 783-} 028 Almmeysfblj .Plainlj/fi‘ Lonnezta Williams, Rashan Green, and all athem' .S'imilarbl situated SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 3.550) YORK CLAIMS SERVICE WAGE AND HOUR CASES Included Actions: Johnson. e! til. v. York Claims Service, Inc. Williams; er al v. Ym'k Claims Service, Ina, et a1. - DECLARATION OF MATTHEW ENHANCEMENT PAYMENT DATE: March 6, 2915 TIME: 9:00 mm. - DEPT: 31 DECLARATION 0F MATTHEW RIGHETTi - I - FELEH Superior Emmi flf cafifam-m, Sagrammm BEEN{WEN E; amalgam; B}! flaw; Humhur: JEECP 45fifl Judicial Councii Coordination Proceeding No. 4560 RIGHETTI IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF 1.,0NNETTA WILLIAMS' AN!) ROSHON GREEN'S APPLICATION FOR COMMON FUND ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, No. 34~2008-00008447 Superior Court of Califomia, County of San Francisco, No. CGC+08-476427 2 wm‘gs‘fi; ‘52-: “7.24? 31smonomsxcwmonruNDDECLRIGHETTLDoc ‘ mmmmmmmmmmmmm__, flame?" r- r r5. =1; OOOQONUI-bWN- NNNNNNNNN ooqoxmgmm~o$$3833$523 I, MATTHEW RIGHETTI, hereby declare as follows: 1.. . I make this declaration ofmy personal knowledge and could testify thereto ifcalled as a witness. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE 2. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 1982 with a degree in economics and graduated from the University of San Francisco School 0f Law in 1985. I am an attorney at law, licensed t0 practice before all courts in the State of California and 3. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 1982 with a degree in Economics. I then graduated from the University of San Francisco School 0f Law in 1985. I am a partner in the firm of Righetti Glugoski, P.C. (“RG”). 4. I am admitted to practice law before the following courts: A) United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit and the Federal Circuit; B) United States District Courts in the Northern, Central, Eastern, and Southern Districts of California, and the Northern District of Illinois, and C) all of California’s state courts. 5. I have been practicing law full time for the past twenty-nine (29) years. My practice has been devoted t0 complex class action litigation for the past twenty-three years. Much of this litigation has involved class action prosecution ofwage and hour laws (state and federal), state and federal privacy laws (FCRA and CCCRA) and consumer laws. A sampling of some 0f the more significant class action cases (including wage and hour litigation) handled by RG, includes: o Co-lead counsel in Rocher v. Sav-On Drug Stores (Hon. Victoria G. Chaney, Los Angeles County Superior Court); See, Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319 [California Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse certification]. The Sav-On litigation was settled _ after the first phase of trial; o Plaintiffs counsel in Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Ina; See, Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (reversing the court of appeal, the California Supreme Court set forth the factors for trial courts t0 use in determining whether or not to DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RIGHETTI -1- 3164\MOTIONS\COMMONFUNDDECLRIGHETI'I.DOC OOOCNONUI$WN~ NNNNNNNN ooqoxmAwN-lE’EESEGESESZ" enforce bans on class actions in employment arbitration agreements]. This was an overtime case styled as a class action; o Plaintiff’s counsel in Winfiey v. ChiefAuto Parts, a wage and hour class action where the trial court’s order to deny certification was reversed by the First DCA; o Plaintiff’s counsel in Crab Addison v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958 [represented plaintiffs in wage and hour litigation where'court of appeal affirmed a trial court decision compelling defendant t0 divulge names and contact information of all putative class members without a privacy notice]. The trial court’s subsequent order denying certification was reversed by the court of appeal 0n November 10, 2014 in a published decision. See, Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack Holdings, 231 Ca1.App.4“‘ 362 (2014); o Plaintiff’s counsel in Rutti v. Lojack Corp, Inc. (2010) 596 F.3d 1046 [Ninth Circuit grants petition for rehearing reversing district court’s summary judgment order setting parameters for the de minimus doctrine and compensable “hours worked” under both state and federal law]. o Co-lead counsel in In re Trans Union Privacy Litigation (MDL, Northern District of Illinois) [Righetti Glugoski was appointed by the Hon: Marvin E. Aspen t0 serve as co-lead counsel 'in multidistrict litigation against Trans Union. The litigation focused on Trans Union's use of its vast database of financial information, which includes the confidential financial information 0f most adults in the United States, to create and sell "target marketing" lists to advertisers in violation of the FCRA. After nearly a decade of litigation the case resulted in a settlement with Trans Union valued at more than $100 million (including $75 million in cash). The settlement obtained final approval from the Hon. Robert Gettleman 0n September 17, 2008. In August 2009, all appeals of the order approving the settlement were dismissed and the settlement became final. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, credit monitoring relief is now being distributed to class members and a cash DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RIGHETTI -2- 3164\MOTIONS\COMMONFUNDDECLRIGHETTI.DOC \OOOVOU‘I-lkb-DN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 payment to class members is scheduled to take place after September 2010. We believe the Trans Union certified class is the largest class of individuals ever certified in the United States. 6. RG acted as trial counsel in what I believe are the only fouf class action overtime cases ever to have been tried under the quantitative executive exemption standard articulated in Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Company (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785. I was trial counsel in a class action tried in Los Angeles County Superior Court before the Hon. J. Stephen Czuleger, resulting in a finding that U-Haul had misclassified all California salaried “General Managers” as exempt from overtime. I was also trial counsel in a certified class action tried in San Diego County Superior Court before the Honorable Patricia Cowett, resulting in a judgment finding that Party City had misclassified salaried employees as exempt and an award 0f class wide damages, fees and costs. In the third case, I was co-lead trial counsel in the Sav-on overtime litigation where, following remand from the California Supreme Court, we completed the first phase of trial before the Honorable Victoria G. Chaney in Los Angeles County Superior Court (complex). The case was then settled before the second phase of trial. In the fourth trial I was class counsel in a certified class action against Taco Bell alleging that its restaurant general managers were misclassified as exempt under California law. The case was tried in the San Diego County Superior Court before the Hon. Kex-Iin Enright and settled toward the end of the liability phase. 7. I regularly speak on panels that involve class action and employment issues. On average, I speak four or five times per year to organizations such as the American Conference Institute, California Employment Lawyers Association, Bridgeport CEB, Industrial Relations Association, and a wide range of Bar associations in California on class action issues involving matters such as trial methodology, class certification, discovery and privacy issues, arbitration agreements and releases, mediation and settlement and recent developments in the field. 8. RG also represents various amicus groups on occasion in state and/or federal court ' 0f appeal proceedings. We have handled appeals throughout California and in the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Fourth Circuit and the Federal Circuit. DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RIGHETTI -3- 3164\MOT|ONS\COMMONFUNDDECLRIGHE'I'I'I.DOC 9. I believe that I possess the experience and personal knowledge necessary to make the statements herein. 10. I am very familiar with the hourly rates being paid to attorneys who prosecute class actions - and particularly wage and hour class actions. In each class action, the courts must approve both the percentage of the total recovery that will be paid to‘ class counsel as well as the hourly.rates charged by class counsel. Thus, for each such case that I prosecute, I, on behalf of RG, submit fee applications to the courts. Each time I make such an application, I must again familiarize myself with the hourly rates charged by counsel performing comparable work. 11. My current hourly rate is $750 and that rate has not changed in the last five (5) years. Courts throughout California have reviewed and approved this-hourly rate, including the Sacramento Superior Court. See, Carl v. Advanced Call Center Technologies (Case no. 34-2013- 00148310). In 2012, my rate of $750 per hour, was approved in a fee application in a contested matter in the case of Rutti v. Lojack Corporation, Ina, Central District California Case N0: SACV 06-350 DOC (JCx), Docket N0. 295. This rate has been approved by many other state and federal courts including courts in the following counties: San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, Alameda, San Francisco, San Bernardino and Orange. 12. I am familiar with the reputation and work of Robin Workman and her firm as I regularly consult with Ms. Workman on employment law and class action issues. Ms. Workman and her firm are held in high regard in the legal communit3ll, a reputation that is well-deserved. Ms. Workman is one of the few plaintiffs’ employment lawyers that has actually tried class actions and therefore has expertise in complex class action litigation that few can match. Given her level of expertise, I believe Ms. Workman’s hourly rate 0f $650.00 per hour is commensurate with, if not below, that charged by her peers in complex class action cases. The $350 rate charged for Aviva Roller, in like vein, is below the rate normally charged for lawyers who have practiced in this area for over eight years, such as Ms. Roller. 13. Given I represent plaintiffs almost exclusively, I am also very familiar with the contingency fee attorneys’ fee rates, particularly as the rates pertain t0 complex employment, DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RIGHETTI -4- 3164\MOTIONS\COMMONFUNDDECLRIGHE'ITI.DOC \DOONQUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 wage and hour, and class action litigation. On behalf of RG, I have negotiated numerous contingency fee agreements with plaintiffs both as individuals and as representatives in class action suits. These agreements typically provide that class counsel will receive between 33 l/3% afid 40% 0f any recovery obtained, with the larger percentage applying if class counsel is required to try the case to verdict. 14. I understand that the contingency fee retainer agreements signed by the plaintiffs in this case provide that counsel will be paid 33 1/3% of any recovery if the case settles more than 90 days before the trial date, and 40% of any recovery if the case is resolved within 90 days prior to trial or if the case is tried. These are typical and standard percentages in employment-related contingency fee agreements. In my experience, the plaintiffs in this complex wage and hour litigation could not have retained competent counsel, particularly with the level of expertise in this area as Ms. Workman and her firm, for any amount significantly less than the contingency fee percentages in the retainer agreements. 15. Given my area of practice, I have litigated many cases that resulted in the creation of a common fund that benefitted a class of. persons and in which courts have ordered that attorneys’ fees and expenses be paid out of that fund. In my experience, common fund fees are awarded as a percentage of the total filnds recovered for the class, and that percentage typically ranges from 28% to 40%. The lower end of the range is generally the floor for most cases, and increases to the 40% level depending on the amount of time the attorneys spend on the case, i.e., if the case is tried versus settled at an earlier stage in the litigation. The following are just a few examples of cases I prosecuted where courts have awarded attorneys’ fees of over 35% from the common fund, all of which resolved pn'or to trial: Crandall v. U-Haul Int’l, Inc. (Hon. J. Stephen Czuleger, Los Angeles County Superior Court), Rocher v. Sav-On Drug Stores (Hon. Victoria G. Chaney, Los Angeles County Superior Court), Taco Bell Wage Litigation (Hon. Kevin Enright, San Diego County Superior Court), Pep Boys Wage Litigation (Hon. Joseph Canon, Orange COunty Superior Court), Lojack Wage Litigation (Hon. Richard Rico, Los Angeles County Superior Court). DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RIGHETTI -5- 3164\MOTIONS\COMMONFUNDDECLRIGHETI'I.DOC ocmfl¢mhwww NNNNNNNNN mqmmgwmwoGSSa‘GESSL‘“ 16. As stated above, I have been in practice since 1985. For almost 30 years, I have prosecuted class actions. Rarely do these cases actually get tried. As the California Supreme Court noted in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn, 59 Cal. 4th 1, 12 (2014), a wage and hour class action that actually proceeds through trial is “an exceedingly rare beast.” Accomplishing the Qerdict in this Case took significant knowledge, experience, tenacity and a willingness to take risks without any assurance that any costs and/or time would be compensated. l7. I am familiar with documents filed in this case, including this Court’s Statement of Decision. The results achieved in this case are truly exceptional, particularly given the exceedingly difficult nature of misclassification class actions. The proper use 0f survey evidence to establish damages in this ca'se was both efficient and called for a degree of expertise that not Imany lawyers possess. Although this process, in my opinion, comported with the requirements of due process, Hit is one to which the defense typically launches unending attacks.- Ms. Workman and her firm withstood the attacks and were able to obtain an outstanding recovery for the class. 18. I understand that Ms. Workman and her firm request a common fund fee 0f 40% of the total recovery, which includes fees for future work in implementing the Plan 0f Distribution. I also understand that Ms. Workman and her firm seek reimbursement of their reasonable out-of- pocket expenses from the fund and that, according t0 the proposed Plan of Distribution, any statutory fees and costs later obtained from Defendant will be returned to the class as an offset against the common fund award. The requested 40% fee is well within the range of reasonableness, particularly given the enormous effort and resources devoted by Ms. Workman and her firm in prosecuting this case for over 7 years and incurring costs in excess of $150,000 in so doing. As the defense presents more and more obstacles to the prosecution 0f misclassification class actions; it is critical that those who are willing t0 expend the time and resources to bring these actions be compensated for the costs associated in fighting these protracted cases. If counsel such as Ms. Workman are not compensated at a rate that allows them to continue such prosecution, then firms will not be able to do this work and represent individuals who do not have the fimds t0 pay out of their own pockets for such representation. DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RIGHETTI -6- 3164\MOTiONS\COMMONFUNDDECLRIGHE'ITI.DOC coexloxmgmw 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Cali orn' 'that the r“ foregoing is‘true and correct and that this decimation was executed on 9 in San Francisco, California. DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RlGHETTi f MATTHEW RIGHETTI -7- 3164\MOTIONS\COMMONFUNDDECLRIGHET'TIDOC EXHIBIT G ° incisive Legal II! Intelligence 2008 NLJ Billing Survey Copyright © 2009, Incisive US Properties, LLC., All Rights Reserved Associate Billing Rate Fiscal Partner Billing Partner Billing Associate Billing Associate Billing Partner Billing F'rm Name Locatlon Rate Low Rate Average Rate AverageYear Rate High Rate Low High Adams and Reese New Orleans $425 $240 $300 $1 75 $209 $31 8 2008 Akerman Senterfitt Miami 2008 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Washington 2008 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Los Angeles Natsis 2008 Andrews Kurth Houston 2008 Arent Fox Washington $710 $410 $465 $260 2008 Armstrong Teasdale St. Louis $450 $295 $300 $175 2008 Arnold & Porter Washington 2008 Baker & Hostetler Cleveland 2008 Baker Botts Houston 2008 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Memphis, Tenn. $525 $230 $300 $120 $218 $339 Berkowitz 2008 Balch & Bingham Birmingham, Ala. $600 $295 $280 $200 2008 Ballard Spahr Andrews & lngersoll, LLP Philadelphia 2008 Bass, Berry & Sims Nashville, Tenn. $575 $240 $310 $180 $245 $408 2008 Bell, Boyd & Lloyd Chicago 2008 Best Best & Krieger Riverside, Calif. $550 $300 $365 $175 $245 $410 2008 Bingham McCutchen Boston 2008 Blank Rome Philadelphia $785 $425 $485 $245 $332 $525 2008 Bond, Schoeneck & King Syracuse, N.Y. $450 $210 $250 $150 $187 $308 2008 Bowman and Brooke Minneapolis 2008 Bracewell & Giuliani Houston 2008 Bradley Arant Rose & White Birmingham, Ala. $550 $260 $310 $170 2008 Briggs and Morgan Minneapolis $580 $300 $290 $195 $229 $420 2008 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Chicago $700 $320 $435 $180 $281 $499 2008 Broad and Cassel Orlando, Fla. $475 $290 $320 $175 $245 $378 2008 Brown Rudnick Boston 2008 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Denver $750 $275 $285 $160 $234 $424 2008 Bryan Cave St. Louis $750 $340 $510 $170 $314 $525 2008 Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles $600 $260 $450 $225 $283 $448 2008 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Pittsburgh $1 ,020 $300 $520 $100 2008 Bullivant Houser Bailey Portland, Ore. $525 $275 $325 $190 2008 Burr & Forman Birmingham, Ala. $495 $210 $305 $165 $235 $352 2008 Butzel Long Detroit $650 $300 $290 $180 2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft New York 2008 Cahill Gordon & Reindel New York 2008 Carlton Fields Tampa, Fla. $650 $305 $335 $195 $267 $435 2008 Chapman and Cutler Chicago 2008 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton New York 2008 Cooley Godward Kronish Palo Alto, Calif. $980 $525 $570 $285 2008 Covington & Burling Washington 2008 Cozen O'Connor Philadelphia $840 $240 $650 $205 $342 $457 2008 Crowell & Moring Washington 2008 Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle New York $785 $675 $575 $290 $434 $730 2008 Davis Polk & Wardwell New York 2008 Davis Wright Tremaine Seattle $71 0 $300 $405 $1 90 $280 $455 2008 Day Pitney Florham Park, N.J. $710 $295 $450 $220 2008 Debeoise & Plimpton New York 2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf New York 2008 Dickinson Wright Detroit $550 $275 $300 $180 2008 Dickstein Shapiro Washington $895 $475 $475 $250 $378 $607 2008 Dinsmore & Shohl Cincinnati $495 $220 $305 $160 $202 $347 2008 DLA Piper London 2008 Dorsey & Whitney Minneapolis $1 ,180 $235 $820 $170 $301 $505 2008 Drinker Biddle & Reath Philadelphia 2008 Duane Morris Philadelphia $755 $340 $510 $230 $326 $490 2008 Dykema Gossett Detroit $650 $265 $435 $170 $277 $415 2008 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge Boston $755 $325 $480 $170 2008 Epstein Becker & Green New York $850 $350 $450 $175 $312 $501 2008 Faegre & Benson Minneapolis 2008 Fenwick & West Mountain View, Calif. 2008 Fish & Richardson Boston 2008 Fisher & Phillips Atlanta $505 $330 $380 $195 2008 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto New York 2008 Foley & Lardner Milwaukee $985 $185 $405 $596 2008 Foley Hoag Boston 2008 Ford & Harrison Atlanta $585 $325 $405 $245 2008 Fowler White Boggs Banker Tampa, Fla. $525 $175 $325 $160 $222 $360 2008 Fox Rothschild Philadelphia $590 $250 $395 $215 $275 $443 2008 Fredrikson & Byron Minneapolis $590 $250 $315 $150 $237 $402 2008 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson New York 2008 Frost Brown Todd Cincinnati $490 $225 $260 $145 $188 $317 2008 Fulbright & Jaworski Houston 2008 Gardere Wynne Sewell Dallas $750 $380 $450 $210 $306 $502 2008 Gibbons Newark, N.J. $700 $375 $415 $220 2008 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Los Angeles 2008 Godfrey & Kahn Milwaukee 2008 Gordon & Rees San Francisco 2008 Goulston & Storrs Boston 2008 GrayRobinson Orlando, Fla. $650 $200 $275 $125 $1 64 $31 O 2008 Greenberg Traurig New York $850 $335 $525 $1 75 $323 $520 2008 Harris Beach Rochester, N.Y. $475 $250 $275 $140 2008 Herrick, Feinstein New York 2008 Hiscock & Barclay Syracuse, N.Y. $650 $190 $430 $145 $235 $361 2008 Hodgson Russ Buffalo, N.Y. $665 $240 $450 $165 $230 $355 2008 Hogan & Hartson Washington $900 $375 $550 $150 $410 $660 2008 Holland & Hart Denver $615 $295 $355 $175 $269 $414 2008 Holland & Knight Tampa, Fla. 2008 Holme Roberts & Owen Denver $635 $285 $525 $160 $294 $415 2008 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn Detroit 2008 Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & San Francisco $795 $515 $510 $275 Rabkin 2008 Hughes Hubbard & Reed New York $875 $625 $600 $270 2008 Hunton & Williams Richmond, Va. 2008 Husch Blackwell Sanders St. Louis $740 $205 $380 $150 $218 $352 2008 Ice Miller Indianopolis, Ind. 2008 lrell & Manella Los Angeles 2008 Jackson Kelly Charleston, W. Va. $435 $200 $335 $135 $155 $238 2008 Jackson Lewis White Plains, N.Y. $595 $250 $405 $180 2008 Jenner & Block Chicago $1 ,000 $525 $495 $325 $393 $616 2008 Jones Day Cleveland 2008 Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, New Orleans $620 $225 $250 $140 $186 $332 Carrere & Denegre 2008 Katten Muchin Rosenman Chicago 2008 Kaye Scholer New York 2008 Kelley Drye & Warren New York $850 $430 $520 $255 2008 Kenyon & Kenyon New York 2008 Kilpatrick Stockton Atlanta $695 $310 $400 $225 $290 $485 2008 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 2008 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Pittsburgh Ellis 2008 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear Irvine, Calif. $660 $375 $430 $245 $287 $473 2008 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel New York 2008 Lane Powell Seattle $550 $325 $325 $195 $270 $405 2008 Latham & Watkins Los Angeles 2008 Lathrop & Gage Kansas City, Mo. $490 $255 $265 $180 2008 LeClairRyan Richmond, Va. 2008 Leonard, Street and Deinard Minneapolis $530 $310 $315 $200 2008 Lewis and Roca Phoenix 2008 Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith Los Angeles 2008 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh St. Louis $440 $225 $305 $140 2008 Lindquist & Vennum Minneapolis $450 $280 $295 $180 $218 $367 2008 Littler Mendelson San Francisco 2008 Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell Dallas $975 $375 $450 $225 $313 $527 2008 Loeb & Loeb New York $925 $450 $500 $260 $422 $651 2008 Lowenstein Sandler Roseland, N.J. $765 $400 $405 $220 2008 Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps San Diego $650 $350 $460 $235 $293 $483 2008 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Los Angeles $850 $495 $505 $290 $407 $626 2008 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Philadelphia $400 $135 $300 $120 Goggin 2008 McCarter & English Newark, N.J. $635 $325 $395 $215 $280 $435 2008 McDonnell Boehnen Chicago 2008 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter Morristown, N.J. $450 $295 $225 $135 $180 $250 2008 McKee Nelson New York $995 $665 $630 $395 2008 McKenna Long & Aldridge Atlanta $750 $370 $450 $220 $274 $454 2008 Michael Best & Friedrich Milwaukee $620 $235 $330 $190 $252 $391 2008 Miles & Stockbridge Baltimore, Md. 2008 Miller & Martin Chattanooga, Tenn. $610 $210 $305 $180 $210 $354 2008 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone Detroit $620 $275 $375 $165 $240 $425 2008 Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Philadelphia $585 $360 $365 $195 $270 $440 Rhoads 2008 Moore & Van Allen Charlotte, N.C. $770 $280 $365 $180 $256 $425 2008 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Philadelphia 2008 Morrison & Foerster San Francisco 2008 Munger, Tolles & Olson Los Angeles 2008 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg Chicago 2008 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough Columbia, S.C. 2008 Nexsen Pruet Columbia, S.C. $450 $250 $250 $170 2008 Nixon Peabody Boston $845 $565 $350 $230 $370 $570 2008 O'Melveny & Myers New York 2008 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Greenville, S.C. $600 $275 $380 $185 $266 $367 Stewart 2008 Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein Charlotte, N.C. 2008 Patton Boggs Washington $990 $360 $535 $244 $372 $586 2008 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker Los Angeles 2008 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & New York Garrison 2008 Pepper Hamilton Philadelphia $795 $385 $395 $240 2008 Perkins Coie Seattle $785 $260 $515 $165 $329 $498 2008 Phelps Dunbar New Orleans $450 $170 $260 $130 $171 $256 2008 Phillips Lytle Buffalo, N.Y. $475 $250 $355 $155 $230 $334 2008 Pillsbury New York 2008 Plunkett & Cooney Bloomfield Hills, Mich. 2008 Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus Kansas City, Mo. $600 $250 $275 $175 2008 Proskauer Rose New York 2008 Quarles & Brady Milwaukee $625 $280 $375 $200 $252 $419 2008 Reed Smith Pittsburgh $900 $375 $580 $235 $423 $626 2008 Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren Milwaukee 2008 Robinson & Cole Hartford, Conn. $650 $320 $350 $210 $276 $436 2008 Roetzel & Andress Akron, Ohio $500 $225 $295 $170 $219 $333 2008 Ruden McClosky Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 2008 Rutan & Tucker Costa Mesa, Calif. $635 $315 $370 $220 2008 Saul Ewing Philadelphia $800 $295 $535 $205 $285 $441 2008 Schiff Hardin Chicago 2008 Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis Philadelphia $625 $275 $375 $160 2008 Schulte Roth & Zabel New York $895 $695 $650 $255 $495 $770 2008 Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold San Francisco $650 $295 $390 $185 $262 $398 2008 Seward & Kissel New York 2008 Shearman & Sterling New York 2008 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton Los Angeles $795 $475 $580 $275 2008 Sherman & Howard Denver 2008 Shoook, Hardy & Bacon Kansas City, Mo. 2008 Shughart Thomson & Kilroy Kansas City, Mo. $500 $240 $245 $185 2008 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick Toledo, Ohio $500 $225 $380 $185 $227 $329 2008 Shutts & Bowen Miami $540 $190 $240 $190 2008 Sills Cummis & Gross Newark, N.J. $725 $395 $425 $215 2008 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett New York 2008 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom New York 2008 Smith, Gambrell & Russell Atlanta $595 $260 $335 $155 2008 Snell & Wilmer Phoenix $725 $300 $420 $170 $271 $444 2008 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey Cleveland 2008 Steptoe & Johnson LLP Washington $895 $350 $685 $210 $384 $591 2008 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Clarksburg, W. Va. $325 $200 $250 $170 2008 Stevens & Lee Reading, Pa. 2008 Stinson Morrison Hecker Kansas City, Mo. $680 $275 $290 $190 $224 $363 2008 Stites & Harbison Louisville, Ky. 2008 Stoel Rives Portland, Ore. $550 $290 $365 $170 2008 Strasburger & Price Dallas $580 $300 $395 $185 2008 Sullivan & Worcester Boston $775 $450 $490 $270 $343 $603 2008 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Atlanta $750 $395 $450 $240 $316 $543 2008 Taft Stettinius & Hollister Cincinnati $475 $200 $325 $165 $217 $354 2008 Thompson & Knight Dallas $785 $410 $500 $250 $334 $545 2008 Thompson Coburn St. Louis $555 $295 $400 $170 2008 Thompson Hine Cleveland $740 $275 $510 $185 $240 $425 2008 Townsend and Townsend and Crew San Francisco 2008 Troutman Sanders Atlanta 2008 Ulmer & Berne Cleveland $495 $230 $310 $175 $205 $319 2008 Vedder Price Chicago $685 $310 $390 $235 $290 $455 2008 Venable Washington $950 $380 $425 $250 $329 $530 2008 Vinson & Elkins Houston 2008 Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease Columbus, Ohio 2008 Weil, Gotshal & Manges New York 2008 White & Case New York $1 ,260 $550 $920 $160 $456 $747 2008 White and Williams Philadelphia 2008 Wiggin and Dana New Haven, Conn. $600 $360 $375 $215 2008 Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon Chicago 2008 Wiley Rein Washington 2008 Williams Mullen Richmond, Va. $625 $300 $355 $170 $260 $401 2008 Willkie Farr & Gallagher New York 2008 Winstead Dallas $655 $365 $385 $215 $282 $465 2008 Winston & Strawn Chicago $975 $400 $625 $210 $376 $622 2008 Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen Philadelphia 2008 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice Winston-Salem, N.C. $750 $285 $370 $140 $275 $448 2008 Wyatt Tarrant & Combs Louisville, Ky. $450 $225 $255 $180 $210 $340 Firmwide Billing Rate Average Associate Billing Partner Billing Rate Med Rate Med Firmwide Billing Rate Med Annual billable hours requirement Variation on the billable hour Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained through variations on the billable hour (%) $257 $205 $310 $265 Yes, varies based on classification/ 1850 for Discounted hourly billing aecnninfnc Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 90 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 15 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, Partners - 1,750; Associates - 1,950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 14 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other No Yes, Associates: 1950 Partners: 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 2000 $295 $220 $330 $290 Yes, 1,850 for associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 50 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes $378 $245 $408 $378 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes $307 $240 $420 $300 Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 who does the work) Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $400 Yes, 2000 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $268 $185 $310 $275 Yes, For members, the billable hour Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 4 requirement is based on age; for all F/T who does the work), Discounted hourly billing attys., 1800 hrs. Yes, Associates - 1900 Hours; Partners - Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 2000 Hours who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 2000 for associates Yes, Partner 1800/Associate 1900/Legal Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 25 Assist 1625 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $368 $225 $425 $390 No $392 $275 $500 $390 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $314 $248 $375 $310 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work) No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work) $340 $240 $400 $325 Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 15 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $424 $310 $510 $405 Yes, TARGET: 1800 Partners; 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of Associates who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $384 $275 $450 $375 Yes, 1850 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 10 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 1850 $271 $230 $350 $295 Yes Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 35 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1875 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1O who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No $334 $265 $435 $325 Yes, Associates 1,950; Shareholders 1,750 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other No Yes No $397 $325 $455 $385 Yes, 1850-2000 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $520 $435 $730 $515 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 10 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing v $395 $280 $450 $395 Yes, Equity Partners = 1700; Contract Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of Partners = 1800; Associates = 1800; Of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Counsel = 1800 Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 83 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Yes, 2000 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $493 $395 $605 $485 Yes, 1950 hours Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $284 $198 $338 $275 Yes, 1900 - Associates 1600 - Partners Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 2,000 hours, up to 100 can be pro bono Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of hours. who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $407 $335 $510 $430 Yes, for associates it is 1850 in all offices ex. Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 NYC and Wilmington where it is 1950 hours who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No $449 $350 $505 $450 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, Partners = 1,750, Associates = 1,950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 83 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $450 Yes, 1650 Partners; 1900 Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 10 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $406 $300 $495 $400 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1800 Yes Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1900 for associates, principals vary Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, Partners 1750; Associates 1850 Yes, 2000 for associates $508 $395 $585 $520 Yes, 1,850 for Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 1900 - No billable hours required for first Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of year associates. who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $314 $220 $350 $325 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $378 $260 $450 $375 Yes, 1850-1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $340 $225 $395 $340 Yes, 1775 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No $272 $180 $310 $270 Yes, 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $374 $300 $500 $390 Yes, 2000 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 1980 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 30 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Yes, 1800 Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No $239 $167 $285 $252 v Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $426 $325 $535 $425 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1800 - upstate; NYC - 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Other $319 $224 $359 $322 Yes, Partners: 1700/Associates: 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $303 $235 $350 $300 Yes, 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 25 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $525 $400 $650 $525 Yes, 1,800 (1,950 IN LOS ANGELES; 2,000 Other IN NEW YORK $350 $275 $405 $345 Yes, 1,800 associates; 1,700 partners; 1,800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 28 other attorneys who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, Partners: 1,750 Associates: 1,900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $355 $265 $410 $345 Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 15 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 3 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1950 - Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, Associates 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $302 $215 $340 $300 Yes, 1800 Partners; 2000 Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 98 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $214 $151 $247 $212 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 20 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $375 $575 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 49 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other No $277 $180 $325 $275 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 25 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 2000 No Yes Yes, 2000 $400 $275 $475 $395 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 3 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $275 $450 $362 Yes, 1700 Discounted hourly billing 15 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $327 $275 $400 $350 Yes, 1850 associates, 1750 partners Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 45 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1825 for associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 who does the work) Yes, Associate 1900, Partner 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes Yes, 1650 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 35 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $309 $210 $375 $330 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 100 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $433 $300 $525 $450 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 80 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $534 $425 $650 $500 Yes, Partners 1,800 to 2,000, Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 20 1,900 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $397 $280 $483 $400 Yes, 1700/Partners 1950/Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1O who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $533 $410 $620 $550 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 2200-2250 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 20 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $353 $285 $440 $345 Yes, 1850 Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $195 $165 $235 $215 Yes, 1700.198 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 3O who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $340 $245 $375 $305 Yes, 1850 Associates, 1750 Partners Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1O who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1850 $316 $205 $360 $330 Yes, Members 5-15 yrs = 1,800; Members 16- Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 25 yrs = 1,700; Members 25+ yrs = 1,600; Associates = 1 ,850 who does the work) $347 $240 $425 $355 Yes, variable Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $360 Yes, Partners 1700/ Associates 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $238 $250 $410 $273 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes Yes, 1950 for associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Yes, 2000 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1800 per partner, 1900 per associate, Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1775 per paralegal who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $468 $365 $590 $430 Yes, 1750 Partners; 1850 to 2000 Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 70 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other No $325 Yes, 1900 for associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 92 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $440 $385 $570 $455 Yes, 3 tiers for associates: 1,950; 1,800; Discounted hourly billing 15 1,650 Yes, Target for billable, probono and firm Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of project hours is 2000 for US/Tokyo and 1800 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing for other offices No Yes, 1940 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1800 - partners; 1850 associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $213 $165 $250 $205 Yes, 1980 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 8 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $288 $220 $330 $300 Yes, 1850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 90 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1950 Associates/ 1875 Partners/1600 Paralegals No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 10 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1,900 for associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 10 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $347 $245 $420 $342 Yes, 1800 Assoc, 1750 Partner Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $441 $390 $585 $425 Yes, 1750 US Partners, 1400 Non-US Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 18 Partners, 1900 US Associates, 1500 Non-US who does the work), Discounted hourly Associates billing, Other Yes Discounted hourly billing $346 $275 $440 $350 Yes, Associates: 1800 / Partners: 1650 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $292 $215 $325 $300 Yes, Partner 1,750 - Associate 1,850 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $372 $255 $430 $380 Yes, 1900 Associates, 1700 Partners Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 57 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, varies by attonrney rank Yes, varies Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 5 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $550 $510 $755 $530 Yes, Partners - 1800/Associates 1850 Discounted hourly billing 5 $318 $260 $380 $300 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 64 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No No No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 3 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other Yes, 1,800 for Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 27 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $297 $225 $325 $315 Yes, 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1O who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 2000 hours, which includes 100 pro Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 2 bono hours who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other No No Yes, 1750 partners, 2000 associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1O who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $354 Yes, 2000 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 20 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $477 $395 $580 $470 Yes, Partner - 1800 Hours Per Year; Of Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of Counsel - 1850; Special Counsel - 1900; who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Associates - 1950 Yes, 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 20 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $293 $228 $373 $275 Yes Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $334 Yes, First-Year Associates - 1600, Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 85 Associates - 1920, Partners - 1700 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $485 $330 $600 $495 Yes, Partner-1600 Associate-1 ,800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 10 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $379 $300 $530 $380 Yes, Partners-1 ,800; Counsel & Associates- Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1,950; Paralegals-1 ,650 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $294 $195 $355 $295 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $453 $345 $530 $450 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 30 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, Associates: 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $330 $235 $420 $325 Yes, 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1900 Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 20 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $262 Yes, Partners 1680 Associates 1900 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 40 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $385 $290 $445 $390 Yes, 2000 Discounted hourly billing 10 $440 $320 $525 $440 Yes, Equity Partner 1600; Non Equity Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of Partner/Of Counsel/Staff Attorney 1800; who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Associate 1900 No No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 0 $513 Yes No No Yes Yes, 1950/1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 20 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $344 $255 $380 $350 Yes, 2000 Hours for Associates Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work) No $390 Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 3 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $448 No Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Yes, 1950 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of who does the work), Discounted hourly billing, Other $248 $275 $450 $200 Yes, 1800 Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 25 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing $300 $210 $345 $310 Yes, Partner - 1700, Counsel - 1800, Assoc. - Blended hourly rates (set rates regardless of 1 900 who does the work), Discounted hourly billing Firm Billing Alternatives Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can innllldn a flaf fan nll Ic ah hnl Irlu rgfn nr an hnl Irlu rafn nlllc a Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained through alternative billing methods (%) NLJ Billing Source National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 15 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Retrospective fee based on 14 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 20 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value, Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Other 20 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value, Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 6 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 1O National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee 25 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 17 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value, Other Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 6 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee 3 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value, Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value, Other Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 18 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) 28 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) 33 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) 15 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee 20 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 11 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 1 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 3 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 15 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 3 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) 35 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 20 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value 15 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) 12 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 12 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value 3O National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value 12 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Other 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 1O National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 6 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 7 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 2 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 8 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value, Other Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 6 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value, Other Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 2 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Fixed or flat fees 1 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 2 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 15 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 1 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value, Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 20 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 22 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fee based on value, Other National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 15 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 2 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Other Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees 3 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 10 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Fixed or flat fees 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 25 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can 5 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency), Retrospective fees based on value National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 Contingency fees, Fixed or flat fees, Hybrid fees (combinations can include a flat fee plus an hourly rate or an hourly rate plus a contingency) National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 ' incisive Legal II! Intelligence 2008 NLJ Associate Class Billing Survey Copyright © 2009, Incisive US Properties, LLC, All Rights Reservedf Fiscal Year Firm Name Associate Class NU Billing Source 1styear 2ndyear 3ryear 4th yar 5thyear 6th year 7th year 8th year 2008 Bass, Berry & Sims $180 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione $240 $260 $280 $305 $335 $360 $385 $405 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck $170 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Bryan Cave $160-$285 $175-$285 $200-$330 $205-$360 $265-$400 $280-$415 $295-$440 $300-$460 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Butzel Long $180 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle $290 $335 $375 $415 $455 $495 $535 $575 National Law Joumal, December 8, 2008 2008 Davis Wright Tremaine $229 $246 $264 $281 $307 $325 $340 $354 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Day Pitney $220-$250 $240-$270 $255-$3 10 $280-$340 $295-$360 $310-$415 $335-$460 $335-$435 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Dickinson Wright $1 80 $185 $190 $200 $210 $225 $245 $265 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Dickstein Shapiro $250-$275 $300-$350 $350- $395 $350-$395 $395-$435 $395-$435 $435-$475 $435-$475 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Dinsmore & Shohl $1 70 $ 1 80 $1 95 $205 $2 15 $225 $235 $245 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Dorsey & Whitney $230 $250 $275 $285 $330 $365 $430 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Fredrikson & Byron $195 $210 $225 $245 $265 $280 $300 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Gardere Wynne Sewell $210 $230 $260 $280 $300 $325 $350 $375 National Law Joumal, December 8, 2008 2008 Hiscock & Barclay $145-$300 $145-$300 $160-$360 $1 60-$360 $160-$360 $170-$380 $170-$380 $180-$430 National Law Joumal, December 8, 2008 2008 Hogan & Hartson $290 $330 $360 $390 $420 $450 $480 $510 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Holland & Hart $215 $235 $255 $275 $295 $305 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Jackson Kelly $150 $170 $186 $202 $219 $238 $257 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Jenner & Block $325 $350 $375 $410 $445 $470 $495 $495 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Kelley Drye & Warren $295 $320 $345 $390 $410 $430 $455 $480 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Kilpatrick Stockton $240 $250 $270 $285 $305 $320 $340 $360 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Knobbe, Mattens, Olson & Bear $245 $275 $300 $325 $350 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh $160 $190 $225 $250 $270 $285 $298 $305 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell Loeb & Loeb Manatt, Phelps & Phillips McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter McKee Nelson Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads Nixon Peabody Patton Boggs Perkins Coie Phillips Lytle Quarles & Brady Robinson & Cole Rutan & Tucker Saul Ewing Schulte Roth & Zabel Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick Steptoe & Johnson LLP Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Sullivan & Worcester Thompson & Knight Thompson Hine Vedder Price White & Case Winstead $225 $300-$325 $290 $135 $395 $210 $297 $275 $263 $160 $204 $220 $230 $215-$230 t4nuhs$255,$3 $220flfl¥7$225 $275 $195 $275 $170 $270 $250 $200 $235 $365 $215 $250 $260 $275 $285 $290 $325-$360 $360-$400 $400-$425 $425-$450 $450-$475 $325 $165 $415 $220 $324 $300 $276 $170 $220 $230 $245 $365 $170 $480 $240 $353 $325 $284 $180 $236 $240 $260 $410 $175 $505-$525 $260 $382 $350 $316 $185 $247 $250 $285 $205-$260 $215-$235 $225-$245 $420 $224 $310 $200 $315 $285 $280 $215 $250 $460 $230 $470 $234 $335 $355 $310 $315 $215 $270 $550 $260 $510 $232 $365 $395 $330 $345 $225 $290 $600 $285 $440 $180 $555 $275 $409 $385 $320 $200 $259 $265 $305 $255 $530 $237 $390 $425 $350 $365 $250 $305 $620 $310 $460 $185 $585 $295 $433 $405 $340 $205 $271 $280 $325 $240-$280 $550 $240 $415 $445 $385 $265 $325 $635 $325 $295 $475-$500 $485 $190 $615-$625 $320 $450 $430 $380 $220 $289 $295 $350 $270-$320 $570 $435 $465 $405 $265 $340 $655 $335 $300 $505 $630 $340 $463 $455 $230 $302 $310 $260-$300 $585 $455 $480 $420 $285 $360 $665 $345 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 National Law Journal, December 8, 2008 EXHIBIT H m ' < 1 7 2 : j g : W W W . T H E R E C O R D E R . C O M I T H E R E C O R D E R D a v i d K e n n e d y M W A l a n L i m h a c h C h r i s H o l m fl M o s k a t e I ’ a \ . - [ W W M M i c h a e i Z a | i g e r W W : : * : ; ' E , . : ' - S h a n e a n R u b e n M u l l e r S t e p h a n E v e r e t t m e _ ‘ J o h n P i c o n e I l l S h a r e h o l d e r H o p k i n s & C a r l e y R a t e s a r e a v e r y c r u d e m e a s u r e o f a l a w y e r ' s r e l a t i v e d e m a n d , b u t b y t h a t c r u d e m e a s u r e , S u l l i v a n & C r o m w e l l ' s N a d e r M o u s a v i i s a t t h e p e a k o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n . T h e | P l i t i g a t o r ’ s $ 1 , 1 5 0 - a n - h o u r r a t e I s w e l l a b o v e t h a t o f o t h e r C a l i f o r n i a I P I i t i g a t o r s e n g a g e d i n b a n k r u p t c y m a t t e r s l a s t y e a r . I n f a m y o u c o u l d h i r e K & L G a t e s ’ M i m a e l B e t t i n g e r a n d M i c h a e l Z e l i g e r f o r j u s t $ 4 0 m ' o r e . D A T A C R U N C H W E E K 0 F A P R I L a , 2 0 1 3 l 1 5 W h a t ' s a n h o u r w o r t h t o d a y ? W i t h a l t e r n a t i v e f e e a r r a n g e m e n t s a n d d i s c o u n t i n g , t h a t ' s n o t a l w a y s a n e a s y q u e s t i o n f o r a l a w y e r t o a n s w e r . E x c e p t i n b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t , w h e r e e v e r y t i m e k e e p e r m u s t s u b m i t a n h o u r l y r a t e I t m a y n o t b e t h e r a t e c h a r g e d a l l c l i e n t s , o r e v e n c h a r g e d t o t h a t c l i e n t o n a l l m a t t e r s . B u t i t ’ s a r a t e . T o p r o v i d e a g l i m p s e o f w h a t t h e m a r k e t w i l l b e a r - - - a n d h a s b o r n e - f o r d i f f e r e n t s p e c 1 a 1 n e s , fi r m s a n d e x p e r i e n c e l e v e l s , A L M ’ s L e g a l I n t e l l i g e n c e h a s m i n e d p u b l i c b a n k - r u p t c y fi l i n g s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y t o e x t r a c t h o u r l y r a t e i n f o r m a fi o n o n t h o u s a n d s o f t i m e - k l a e p e r s , g o i n g b a c k t o 2 0 0 6 a n d t h r o u g h t h e fi r s t h a l f o f 2 0 1 2 . T h o u g h m u c h o f t h e w o r k i n b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t i s p e r f o r m e d b y b a n h u p t c y p r a c t i t i o n e r s , m a n y t a s k s a r e n o t s o p l e n t y o f o t h e r s p e c i a l fi e s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d . L a t e r t h i s y e a x A L I w i l l h a v e c o m p l e t e d a t a s e t s a v a i l a b l e f o r p u r c h a s e ; f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n , c o n t a c t A I M e g a l i n t e l @ a l m . c o m . T H E $ 1 . D O D C L U B C ' a l i f u ‘ r . . B n b e t t M o o r e P e t e r B e n u d i z L o s A n g e l e s C r a i g A d a s B r e t t G o l d b l a t t S i l i c o n V a l l e y M i i b a n k fl T w e e d , H a d l e y & M c C l n v L o s A n g e l e s $ 1 , 0 0 0 A f o u r - d i g i t b i l l i n g r a t e r e m a i n s a r a r i t y i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a m a r k e t . T h o u g h m o r e t h a n 7 0 0 0 C a l l f o r m a ~ b a s e d l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s l o g g e d h o u r s i n a b a n k r u p t c y p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e p a s t fi v e y e a r s , o n l y 1 2 o f t h e m c h a r g e d $ 1 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e a n h o u r . N i n e a r e f r o m M i l b a n k T w e e d ' s L A . o f fi c e T h e V a l l e y c a n b o a s t o f t w o , S . F . n o n e . : I g . . - ~ L u k a C u c a l i s S h e p p a r d , M u l l i n , R i c h t e r & H a m p t o n D e l M a r c o r p o r a t e l a w , i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o p e r t y N a t a l i e D a q h b a n d a n P B r y a n C a v e S a n t a M o n i c a b a n k r u p t c y $ 1 5 A d a m M a l a t e s t a t h a m & W a t k i n s L o s A n g e l e s c a p i t a l m a r k e t s $ 4 8 2 S t e p h e n C h u G i b s o n , D u n n & C r u t c h e r L o s A n g e l e s c o r p o r a t e t r a n s a c t i o n s $ 5 1 5 M - z fl u s M e r e d i t h E d e l m a n D L A P i p e r L o s A n g e l a s r e s t r u c t u r i n g $ 8 0 2 0 0 8 T e d D i l l m a n L a m a m & W a t k i n s L o s A n g e l e s b a n k i n g $ 5 3 2 0 0 8 A n n M i n e r D L A P i p e r E a s t P a l o A l t o \ l i t i g a t i o n $ 5 1 0 2 M B L D a v i d R u s s e l l J a g g n a r & B l o c k L o s A n g e l e s l i t i g a fi o n S 5 0 0 2 0 9 6 A l n y a h I m a m “ M i i b a n k , T w e e d , H a d l e y & M c C l o y L o s A n g e l a s l i t i g a t i o n a n d a r b i t r a t i o n $ 6 9 5 2 0 0 6 M a l i n d a G o r d o n P a u l H a s t i n g s L o s A n g e l a s e m p l o y m e n t l i t i g a t i o n $ 1 5 2 0 m M i c h a e l S a c k s S h e p p a r d , M u l l i n , R i c h t e r & H a m p t o n S a n F r a n c i s c o b a n k r u p t c y $ 0 5 ' 2 0 0 6 R a c h e l L o w e D L A P i p e r L o s A n g e l e s l i t i g a t i o n a n d a r b i t r a t i o n “ g B e m a n d P a n D L A P i p e r I . L o s A n g e I e s r e s t r u c t u r i n g $ 6 3 0 L a r r y L a w r e n c e M o r g a n , L e w i s & B o c k i u s L o s A n g e l a s l a b o r a n d e m p l o y m e n t $ 4 4 2 | S t a n L e w a n d o w s k i K & L e m s ? a n A l t o c a p i t a l m a r k e t s $ 4 2 5 K e l I y P o p e D o w n a y B r a n d S a c r a m e n t o l i t i g a t i o n $ 1 5 S O U R C E : A L M ' s L e g a l I n t e l l i g e n c e - W i t h e a c h y e a r o f a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e , n e w e r l a w y e r s t y p i c a l l y s e e t h e i r b i l l a b l e r a t e s i n c h u p . T o s e e w h a t d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s o f r e c e n t g r a d u a t e s a r e d u r g i n g , w e p u l l e d a t r a n d o m f o r e a c h o f t h e p a s t n i n e y e a r s f o u r l a w y e r s p r a c t i c i n g a t m i d s i z e a n d l a r g e r f i r m s a r o u n d t h e s t a t e . N o s u r p r i s e : R a t e s c a n v a r y w i d e l y , a n d c l i m b q u i c k l y : T h e f o u r w h o s t a r t e d i n 2 0 1 1 w e r e c h a r g i n g $ 3 6 0 t o $ 5 7 0 i n 2 0 1 2 . w h i l e o u r s a m p l e o f l a w y e r s w h o s t a r t e d o u t i n 2 0 0 3 r a n g e f r o m $ 5 2 0 t o $ 7 1 5 . ” u . . . EXHIBIT I Workman Law Firm, PC 177 Post Street Ste 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 OWorkman;fiepteaenling Employ“: BILL TO: Alfred Lax 355 Caswell Avenue Oakland, CA 94603 DATE Fees Jul 06, 2018 Jul 12, 2018 Jul 16, 2018 Jul 20, 2018 Jul 20, 2018 Aug 06, 2018 Aug 08, 2018 Aug 28, 2018 Sep 20, 2018 Sep 25, 2018 Sep 26, 2018 Sep 28, 2018 Oct o4, 2018 Oct 05, 2018 Page 1 of 16 DESCRIPTION July 20 1 8-February 2021 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; ATTENTION TO CLIENT DOCUMENTS COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT RESEARCH RE: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT ISSUES REVIEW AUTHORITIES RE: EXPENSES/DEDUCTION ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT RESEARCH RE: SEPARATE COMPENSATION ISSUES ATTENTION TO SEPARATE COMPENSATION ISSUES; REVIEW CERTIFIED TIRE/OMAN ISSUES INVOICE Invoice # 1273214 Date: Jan 29, 2021 Client Ref#: 3286.00 Matter #2 3286.00 Terms: Due Upon Receipt Re: Lax v. Roto-Rooter (Class Action) STAFF RATE HOURS RW $750.00 2.25 RW $750.00 3.2 RW $750.00 1.5 RD $375.00 8.5 RW $750.00 1.5 RW $750.00 0.4 RW $750.00 0.75 RW $750.00 0.5 RW $750.00 0.7 RW $750.00 0.75 RW $750.00 0.35 RW $750.00 0.85 RD $375.00 8.2 RW $750.00 3.25 Workman Law Firm, PC AMOUNT $1,687.50 $2,400.00 $1,125.00 $3,187.50 $1,125.00 $300.00 $562.50 $375.00 $525.00 $562.50 $262.50 $637.50 $3,075.00 $2,437.50 DATE Oct 24, 20 1 8 Oct 25, 20 1 8 Oct 26, 20 1 8 Oct 29, 20 1 8 Oct 30, 2018 NOV 20, 2018 NOV21,2018 NOV 22,2018 NOV 23,2018 NOV 26, 2018 NOV 27, 2018 NOV 27, 2018 NOV 28, 2018 NOV 28, 2018 NOV 29, 2018 NOV 29, 2018 NOV 30, 2018 NOV 30, 2018 Dec 03, 2018 Dec 04, 2018 Dec 05, 2018 Dec 12, 2018 Jan 03, 2019 Jan 04, 2019 Jan 08, 2019 Jan 09, 2019 Jan 14, 2019 Page 2 of 16 DESCRIPTION STAFF RATE RESEARCH RE: VAQUERO SEPARATE RD $375.00 COMPENSATION ISSUES REVIEW VAQUERO AND OTHER DECISIONS RW $750.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT RW $750.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; RW $750.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH EMPLOYER COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT RW $750.00 INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING RD $375.00 COMPLAINT ATTENTION TO DRAFTING COMPLAINT RD $375.00 FURTHER ATTENTION TO COMPLAINT RD $375.00 FURTHER ATTENTION TO COMPLAINT; RD $375.00 RESEARCH RE: SAME ATTENTION TO PAGA LETTERS ISSUES; RW $750.00 ATTENTION TO COMPLAINT REVIEW CLIENT DOCUMENTS RW $750.00 RESEARCH RE: PAGA LETTER RD $375.00 CONTINUE RESEARCH; PREPARE PAGA RD $375.00 LETTER ATTENTION TO RW $750.00 VAQUERO/BLUFORD/GONZALES/AGUILAR FURTHER ATTENTION TO PAGA RW $750.00 LETTER/COMPLAINT FURTHER RESEARCH FOR COMPLAINT/PAGA RD $375.00 LETTER FINALIZE COMPLAINT; RESEARCH RE: SAME RD $375.00 ATTENTION TO COMPLAINT; ATTENTION TO RW $750.00 OTHER POTENTIALLY RELATED ACTION. ATTENTION TO CLIENT DOCUMENTS RW $750.00 ATTENTION TO SERVICE ISSUES RW $750.00 FURTHER ATTENTION TO SERVICE ISSUES RW $750.00 ATTENTION TO SERVICE ISSUES RW $750.00 RESEARCH RE: DEDUCTIONS TAKEN BY RD $375.00 EMPLOYER REVIEW AUTHORITIES RE: DEDUCTION RW $750.00 ISSUES ATTENTION TO ANSWER RW $750.00 ATTENTION TO PREPARING DISCOVERY RW $750.00 ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY JM $200.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 8.6 3.75 0.75 0.85 0.55 0.25 5.25 6.5 7.35 4.4 3.4 6.75 5.9 4.35 2.9 6.5 7.25 4.2 2.55 0.4 0.5 0.4 7.35 4.2 2.7 3.25 AMOUNT $3,225.00 $2,812.50 $562.50 $637.50 $412.50 $93.75 $1,968.75 $2,437.50 $2,756.25 $3,300.00 $2,550.00 $2,531.25 $2,212.50 $3,262.50 $2,175.00 $2,437.50 $2,718.75 $3,150.00 $1,912.50 $300.00 $375.00 $300.00 $2,756.25 $3,150.00 $2,025.00 $2,437.50 $600.00 DATE Jan 15,2019 Jan 16,2019 Jan 18,2019 Mar 07,2019 Mar 07, 2019 Mar 08, 2019 Mar 15,2019 Mar 18,2019 Mar 19,2019 Apr 12,2019 Apr 29,2019 Apr 30,2019 May01,2019 May 03, 2019 May 06, 2019 May 08, 2019 May 17,2019 May21,2019 May 23,2019 Jun 03, 2019 Jun 04,2019 Jun 07,2019 Jun 11,2019 Jun 17,2019 Jun 18,2019 Page 3 0f 16 DESCRIPTION FURTHER ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO JOINT CMC STATEMENT ISSUES ATTENTION TO DRAFT CMC STATEMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY CLIENT; ATTENTION TO JOINT CMC STATEMENT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL TRAVEL TO AND ATTEND CMC; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RE: SAME FURTHER ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER ATTENTION TO NEW DECISIONS COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO MEDIATORS COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENT; COMMUNICATION WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO SELECTION OF MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTENTION TO POTENTIAL MEDIATORS; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH POTENTIAL MEDIATORS; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT ATTENTION TO MEDIATION ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT STAFF RATE RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 0.5 0.7 1 2.5 0.25 3.2 3.4 1.75 0.5 1.7 0.55 0.4 1.7 0.7 0.6 1.7 0.5 0.25 1.3 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.3 0.25 AMOUNT $375.00 $525.00 $200.00 $1,875.00 $50.00 $2,400.00 $2,550.00 $1,312.50 $375.00 $1,275.00 $412.50 $300.00 $1,275.00 $525.00 $450.00 $1,275.00 $375.00 $187.50 $975.00 $375.00 $187.50 $375.00 $187.50 $225.00 $187.50 DATE Jun 19,2019 Jun 19,2019 Jun 20,2019 Jun21,2019 Jun 24,2019 Jun 25,2019 Jun 25,2019 Jun 26,2019 Jun 28,2019 Ju101,2019 Ju101,2019 Jul 02, 2019 Jul 03, 2019 Jul 03, 2019 Ju109,2019 Jul 10,2019 Jul 11, 2019 Ju123,2019 Ju125,2019 Ju129,2019 Aug 05,2019 Aug 06,2019 Aug 12,2019 Aug 16,2019 Aug 19,2019 Aug21,2019 Sep 05, 2019 Sep 06, 2019 Page 4 of 16 DESCRIPTION REVIEW EMAIL RE CMC RESCHEDULE SEPTEMBER ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATORS COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. WORKMAN AND MEDIATOR REGARDING SCHEDULING OF MEDIATION COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS RE: MEDIATION COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTENTION TO FURTHER MEDIATION ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL AND MEDIATOR‘S OFFICE REGARDING SCHEDULING OF MEDIATION ATTENTION TO MEDIATION ISSUES ATTENTION TO MEDIATION ISSUES COMMUNICATION WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL AND MS. WORKMAN RE MEDIATION COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; REVIEW MATERIALS PRODUCED BY DEFENSE; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO CMC ISSUES ATTENTION TO PREPARATION AND FILING OF STAFF RATE RD RW RW RW RW CP RW RW RW RW CP RW RW CP RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW CP $375.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 0.1 0.25 0.55 0.6 0.5 0.33 0.7 0.65 0.3 0.55 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.25 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.25 0.75 0.55 0.25 0.3 0.6 0.25 0.35 5.4 0.6 0.58 AMOUNT $37.50 $187.50 $412.50 $450.00 $375.00 $66.00 $525.00 $487.50 $225.00 $412.50 $50.00 $187.50 $225.00 $50.00 $450.00 $375.00 $225.00 $187.50 $562.50 $412.50 $187.50 $225.00 $450.00 $187.50 $262.50 $4,050.00 $450.00 $116.00 DATE DESCRIPTION STAFF RATE HOURS AMOUNT CMC STATEMENT; COMMUNICATION WITH MS. WORKMAN RE SAME Sep 06, 2019 ATTENTION TO JOINT CMC STATEMENT; RW $750.00 0.85 $637.50 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL Sep 12, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT; RW $750.00 0.75 $562.50 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL Sep 16, 2019 ATTENTION TO CMC ISSUES RW $750.00 0.25 $187.50 Sep 23, 2019 ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER RW $750.00 0.35 $262.50 Sep 23, 2019 REVIEW CMC ORDER; COMMUNICATIONS CP $200.00 0.33 $66.00 WITH MS. WORKMAN RE SAME Sep 25, 2019 ATTENTION TO MATERIALS PRODUCED BY RW $750.00 3.2 $2,400.00 DEFENDANT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL Sep 30, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; RW $750.00 2.4 $1,800.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT; ATTENTION TO DATA Oct 02, 2019 ATTENTION TO DEFENDANT'S DATA; RW $750.00 0.8 $600.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL Oct 07, 2019 ATTENTION TO DEFENDANT'S PRODUCTION; RW $750.00 2.5 $1,875.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL Oct 11, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RW $750.00 0.45 $337.50 Oct 14, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; RW $750.00 3.25 $2,437.50 ATTENTION TO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT Oct 17, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT RW $750.00 0.5 $375.00 Oct 18, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RW $750.00 0.55 $412.50 Oct 21, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT RW $750.00 0.7 $525.00 Oct 25, 2019 COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT; RW $750.00 2.7 $2,025.00 ATTENTION TO EXPERT'S ANALYSIS Oct 28, 2019 ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY CP $200.00 0.5 $100.00 Oct 28, 2019 ATTENTION TO MEDIATION BRIEF RW $750.00 4.4 $3,300.00 Oct 28, 2019 RESEARCH RE: MEDIATION BRIEF RD $375.00 7.35 $2,756.25 Oct 29, 2019 FURTHER RESEARCH RE: MEDIATION BRIEF RD $375.00 8.75 $3,281.25 Oct 29, 2019 FURTHER ATTENTION TO MEDIATION BRIEF; RW $750.00 6.3 $4,725.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT Oct 30, 2019 ATTENTION TO MEDIATION BRIEF; RW $750.00 5.6 $4,200.00 COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Page 5 0f 16 Workman Law Firm, PC DATE Oct 30, 2019 Oct 31, 2019 Oct 31, 2019 Oct 31, 2019 NOV01,2019 NOV01,2019 NOV01,2019 NOV 04, 2019 NOV 04, 2019 NOV 05, 2019 NOV 06, 2019 NOV 06, 2019 NOV 08, 2019 NOV 20, 2019 Dec 04, 2019 Dec 05, 2019 Dec 06, 2019 Dec 09, 2019 Dec 11, 2019 Dec 12, 2019 Dec 16, 2019 Dec 16, 2019 Dec 20, 2019 Page 6 0f 16 DESCRIPTION FURTHER RESEARCH RE: MEDIATION BRIEF ATTENTION TO DOCUMENT REVIEW FURTHER ATTENTION TO MEDIATION ISSUES ATTENTION TO MEDIATION BRIEF; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT EDIT MEDIATION BRIEF CASES AND PROOFREAD ATTENTION TO MEDIATION BRIEF AND EXHIBITS; REVIEW CLIENT DOCUMENTS; COMMUNICATION WITH MS. CONKLIN- RAUCH RE SAME FINALIZE MEDIATION BRIEF; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT REVIEW DOCUMENTS PRODUCED AND EXPERT ANALYSIS TO PREPARE FOR MEDIATION; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT RE: SAME ATTENTION TO DOCUMENT REVIEW CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT; REVIEW MATERIALS; ATTEND MEDIATION REVIEW MEDIATION WITH MS. WORKMAN AND PORTER COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT; REVIEW REVISED ANALYSIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR ATTENTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL; PARTIAL JOT ATTENTION TO JOINT CMC FURTHER ATTENTION TO JOINT CMC STATEMENT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR ATTENTION TO EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS RE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR STAFF RATE RD $375.00 CP $200.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 4.75 0.5 6.25 4.75 4.45 1.2 2.5 3.25 0.27 10.4 0.5 1.75 0.55 0.75 0.65 0.25 0.6 0.75 0.3 0.2 0.35 0.08 0.5 AMOUNT $1,781.25 $100.00 $2,343.75 $3,562.50 $1,668.75 $240.00 $1,875.00 $2,437.50 $54.00 $7,800.00 $187.50 $1,312.50 $412.50 $562.50 $487.50 $93.75 $450.00 $562.50 $225.00 $150.00 $262.50 $16.00 $375.00 DATE Jan 15, 2020 Jan 16, 2020 Jan 22, 2020 Jan 23, 2020 Jan 23, 2020 Jan 23, 2020 Jan 27, 2020 Jan 29, 2020 Jan 30, 2020 Jan 31, 2020 Feb 03, 2020 Feb 04, 2020 Feb 04, 2020 Feb 14, 2020 Feb 17, 2020 Feb 20, 2020 Feb 21, 2020 Feb 24, 2020 Feb 25, 2020 Feb 25, 2020 Feb 25, 2020 Feb 26, 2020 Feb 27, 2020 Feb 28, 2020 Mar 02, 2020 Page 7 0f 16 DESCRIPTION COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR REVIEW CMC STATEMENT ATTENTION TO JOINT CMC STATEMENT; ATTENTION TO FILING SAME; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTENTION TO JOINT CMC STATEMENT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH COUNSEL RE SAME ATTENTION TO CMC ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR ATTENTION TO OBTAINING TENTATIVE RULING COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTENTION TO MEDIATION ISSUES REVIEW MEDIATION LETTER FROM MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR RESEARCH RE: ISSUES FOR SECOND MEDIATION ATTENTION TO MEDIATION BRIEF; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; ATTENTION TO SECOND MEDIATION; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS; REVIEW AND CALL ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY AND SERVICE OF DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY TO SERVE ON DEFENDANT COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL STAFF RATE RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 0.25 1.2 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.25 0.4 0.55 0.55 0.7 0.35 0.2 0.25 7.2 4.35 0.75 0.55 6.4 0.45 3.7 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.3 AMOUNT $187.50 $900.00 $225.00 $75.00 $900.00 $50.00 $300.00 $412.50 $1 10.00 $525.00 $262.50 $75.00 $187.50 $2,700.00 $3,262.50 $562.50 $412.50 $4,800.00 $168.75 $800.00 $2,775.00 $300.00 $225.00 $187.50 $225.00 DATE Mar 05, 2020 Mar 16, 2020 Mar 17, 2020 Mar 17, 2020 Mar 26, 2020 Mar 27, 2020 Mar 30, 2020 Mar 30, 2020 Apr 02, 2020 Apr 03, 2020 Apr 03, 2020 Apr 06, 2020 Apr 16, 2020 Apr 20, 2020 Apr 22, 2020 Apr 23, 2020 Apr 24, 2020 Apr 25, 2020 Apr 27, 2020 Apr 30, 2020 May 11, 2020 May 12, 2020 May 12, 2020 May 13, 2020 Page 8 0f 16 DESCRIPTION ATTENTION TO DOCUMENTS PROVIDES BY CLIENT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT ATTENTION TO COMMUNICATIONS FROM COURT REVIEW ORDER MOVING CMC FROM 3/27 TO 8/28/20 COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; REVIEW MATERIALS PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; RESEARCH RE: ISSUES RAISED BY DEFENDANT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. DAVEY RE DISCOVERY STATUS COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; ATTENTION TO DEFENDANT‘S ASSERTIONS ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUES REVIEW DEFENDANT‘S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUES ATTENTION TO PMQ DEPOSITION ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT; ATTENTION TO BRIEFING FOR MEDIATION COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT RE MEDIATION COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. WORKMAN RE CLIENT DOCUMENTS STAFF RATE RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 CP $200.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 2.7 0.55 0.55 0.1 3.35 0.7 0.1 1.2 0.9 0.1 0.55 0.4 1.75 0.7 0.6 0.25 0.3 0.6 0.85 0.3 0.35 3.75 0.35 0.35 AMOUNT $2,025.00 $412.50 $412.50 $37.50 $2,512.50 $525.00 $20.00 $900.00 $675.00 $37.50 $412.50 $300.00 $1,312.50 $525.00 $450.00 $187.50 $225.00 $450.00 $637.50 $225.00 $262.50 $2,812.50 $70.00 $70.00 DATE May 13, 2020 May 13, 2020 May 14, 2020 May 14, 2020 May 14, 2020 May 15, 2020 May 18, 2020 May 26, 2020 May 27, 2020 May 29, 2020 May 31, 2020 Jun 01, 2020 Jun 02, 2020 Jun 03, 2020 Jun 05, 2020 Jun 08, 2020 Jun 12, 2020 Jun 19, 2020 Jun 22, 2020 Jun 24, 2020 Jun 25, 2020 Jun 28, 2020 Jun 30, 2020 Jul 06, 2020 Jul 07, 2020 Page 9 0f 16 DESCRIPTION DISCUSS MEDIATION WITH MS. WORKMAN COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT; PARTICIPATE IN SUBSEQUENT MEDIATION ATTENTION TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM MEDIATOR INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING CLIENT DOCUMENTS COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; ATTENTION TO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS; ATTENTION TO PROPOSAL BY MEDIATOR ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUES; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTENTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUES ATTENTION TO CMC ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTENTION TO PREPARING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FURTHER ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO ORDER FROM COURT REVIEW EMERGENCY ORDER COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO REVISIONS TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STAFF RATE RD $375.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 0.65 6.7 0.15 0.3 1.85 0.7 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.55 5.35 5.55 1.2 0.7 0.25 0.2 0.55 0.3 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.6 0.7 0.35 4.7 AMOUNT $243.75 $5,025.00 $30.00 $60.00 $1,387.50 $525.00 $187.50 $187.50 $225.00 $412.50 $4,012.50 $4,162.50 $900.00 $525.00 $187.50 $75.00 $412.50 $225.00 $187.50 $225.00 $262.50 $450.00 $525.00 $262.50 $3,525.00 DATE Jul 08, 2020 Jul 08, 2020 Jul 13, 2020 Jul 16, 2020 Jul 17, 2020 Jul 20, 2020 Jul 22, 2020 Jul 23, 2020 Jul 24, 2020 Jul 29, 2020 Aug 03, 2020 Aug 05, 2020 Aug 07, 2020 Aug 10, 2020 Aug 11, 2020 Aug 11, 2020 Aug 13, 2020 Aug 14, 2020 Aug 17, 2020 Aug 18, 2020 Aug 19, 2020 Aug 19, 2020 Page 10 0f 16 DESCRIPTION INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE STATUS OF SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO REVISED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; FURTHER ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREMEENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; FURTHER ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEDIATOR; ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT RE SETTLEMENT; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXPERT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES; ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STAFF RATE CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 CP $200.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 0.2 2.25 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.75 0.35 2.55 1.5 0.8 0.25 0.5 0.6 0.75 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.45 1.5 0.25 0.7 0.25 AMOUNT $40.00 $1,687.50 $675.00 $450.00 $450.00 $562.50 $262.50 $1,912.50 $1,125.00 $600.00 $187.50 $375.00 $450.00 $562.50 $120.00 $900.00 $450.00 $337.50 $1,125.00 $187.50 $525.00 $50.00 DATE Aug 20, 2020 Aug 24, 2020 Aug 25, 2020 Aug 27, 2020 Aug 28, 2020 Aug 3o, 2020 Aug 31, 2020 Sep 01, 2020 Sep 02, 2020 Sep 10, 2020 Sep 11, 2020 Sep 15, 2020 Sep 16, 2020 Sep 16, 2020 Sep 17, 2020 Sep 18, 2020 Sep 21, 2020 Sep 23, 2020 Sep 24, 2020 Oct 02, 2020 Page 11 0f16 DESCRIPTION COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES; ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ISSUES; ATTENTION TO COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COURT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT RE SAME; ATTENTION TO NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND CMC STATEMENT ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ISSUES ATTENTION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT ISSUES ATTENTION TO CLASS NOTICE ATTENTION TO CASE STATUS REVIEW; REVIEW OF COURT DOCKET AND ORDERS; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME FURTHER ATTENTION TO CLASS NOTICE; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RE: SAME ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; FURTHER ATTENTION TO CLASS NOTICE STAFF RATE RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW CP RW RW CP CP RW RW CP RW CP CP RW $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 $200.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $200.00 $200.00 $750.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 0.65 1.25 2.55 0.6 0.75 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.25 3.45 0.25 2.4 0.9 1.2 2.9 2.2 1.3 AMOUNT $487.50 $937.50 $1,912.50 $450.00 $562.50 $375.00 $525.00 $450.00 $320.00 $375.00 $187.50 $400.00 $690.00 $187.50 $1,800.00 $180.00 $900.00 $580.00 $440.00 $975.00 DATE Oct 09, 2020 Oct 15, 2020 Oct 16, 2020 Oct 19, 2020 Oct 19, 2020 Oct 20, 2020 Oct 20, 2020 Oct 20, 2020 Oct 21, 2020 Oct 21, 2020 Oct 21, 2020 Oct 22, 2020 Oct 22, 2020 Oct 22, 2020 Oct 23, 2020 Oct 23, 2020 Oct 23, 2020 Oct 26, 2020 Oct 27, 2020 Page 12 0f 16 DESCRIPTION ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTENTION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTENTION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION AND ACCOMPANYING PAPERS RESEARCH RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ISSUES ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR RE SAME FURTHER RESEARCH FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION AND ACCOMPANYING PAPERS ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION AND ACCOMPANYING PAPERS ATTENTION TO DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME; COMMUNICATIONS WITH SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR RE SAME FURTHER RESEARCH FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION AND ACCOMPANYING PAPERS COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PAPERS; FINALIZE AND ATTENTION TO FILING OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PAPERS AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ATTENTION TO ALL FINAL APPROVAL DOCUMENTS ATTENTION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME REVIEW FILING RE MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ATTENTION TO PROVIDING SETTLEMENT TO LWDA STAFF RATE CP $200.00 CP $200.00 CP $200.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 CP $200.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 CP $200.00 CP $200.00 RD $375.00 RW $750.00 RW $750.00 RD $375.00 CP $200.00 RD $375.00 CP $200.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 3 .85 2.6 5.25 1.2 4.4 3.25 5.5 6.75 0.6 5.35 6.3 7.55 3.4 5.7 0.2 0.35 AMOUNT $770.00 $1,200.00 $400.00 $1,950.00 $1,968.75 $240.00 $1,650.00 $2,437.50 $4,125.00 $2,531.25 $120.00 $200.00 $2,006.25 $4,725.00 $5,662.50 $1,275.00 $1,140.00 $75.00 $70.00 DATE Oct 30, 2020 NOV 03, 2020 NOV 09, 2020 NOV 10, 2020 NOV 10, 2020 NOV 18, 2020 NOV 18, 2020 NOV 19, 2020 NOV 19, 2020 NOV 20, 2020 NOV 22, 2020 NOV 23, 2020 Dec 01, 2020 Dec 02, 2020 Dec 03, 2020 Dec 04, 2020 Page 13 0f16 DESCRIPTION ATTENTION TO COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED BY COURT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RE: ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; FURTHER ATTENTION TO SAME FURTHER ATTENTION TO ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RE: SAME REVISE CLASS NOTICE; ATTENTION TO ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION AND FILING OF SAME; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL RE: SAME ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION ATTENTION TO COURT'S RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; ATTENTION TO FILING ISSUES ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TENTATIVE RULING; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME ATTENTION TO SETTLEMENT DEADLINES; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME ATTENTION TO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ISSUES; ATTENTION TO CLASS NOTICE; ATTENTION TO AMENDED COMPLAINT; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENT ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS ADMINISRATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS STAFF RATE RW RW RW RW CP RW CP CP RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $200.00 $200.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 $750.00 Workman Law Firm, PC HOURS 2.25 2.2 1.75 1.5 1.45 0.7 0.4 0.45 3.2 1.75 0.3 0.6 0.75 0.25 0.9 2.2 AMOUNT $1,687.50 $1,650.00 $1,312.50 $1,125.00 $290.00 $525.00 $80.00 $90.00 $2,400.00 $1,312.50 $225.00 $450.00 $562.50 $187.50 $675.00 $1,650.00 DATE DESCRIPTION STAFF RATE HOURS AMOUNT ADMINISTRATOR; ATTENTION TO CLASS NOTICE; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL Dec 04, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH SETTLEMENT CP $200.00 0.7 $140.00 ADMINISTRATOR; ATTENTION TO WORKWEEKS FORM; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME Dec 07, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 0.8 $600.00 ADMINISTRATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO CLASS NOTICE Dec 08, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 0.7 $525.00 ADMINISTRATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; ATTENTION TO COURT'S ORDER Dec 09, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 0.25 $187.50 ADMINISTRATOR Dec 17, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS RW $750.00 0.65 $487.50 Dec 18, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS RW $750.00 0.7 $525.00 Dec 22, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS; RW $750.00 0.65 $487.50 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR Dec 28, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 0.85 $637.50 ADMINISTRATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS Dec 29, 2020 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 1.2 $900.00 ADMINISTRATOR; COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS Jan 03, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL ISSUES RW $750.00 5.7 $4,275.00 Jan 04, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS; RW $750.00 4.35 $3,262.50 FURTHER ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL ISSUES Jan 06, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 0.45 $337.50 ADMINISTRATOR; Jan O8, 2021 CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS RW $750.00 0.5 $375.00 Jan 11, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 0.3 $225.00 ADMINISTRATOR Jan 12, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL AND FEES CP $200.00 3.42 $684.00 MOTIONS Jan 12, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMS RW $750.00 0.35 $262.50 ADMINISTRATOR Jan 13, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL AND FEES CP $200.00 4.9 $980.00 MOTIONS; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME Page 14 0f 16 Workman Law Firm, PC DATE DESCRIPTION STAFF RATE HOURS AMOUNT Jan 14, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL AND FEES CP $200.00 5.6 $1,120.00 MOTIONS, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS; INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME Jan 14, 2021 COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS RW $750.00 0.55 $412.50 Jan 17, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL ISSUES RW $750.00 4.35 $3,262.50 Jan 21, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL CP $200.00 0.55 $1 10.00 Jan 22, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL CP $200.00 0.45 $90.00 Jan 24, 2021 ATTENTION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS‘ RW $750.00 4.4 $3,300.00 FEES, COSTS AN CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FEES. Jan 25, 2021 ATTENTION TO FEES MOTION; INTERNAL CP $200.00 0.45 $90.00 COMMUNICATIONS RE SAME Jan 25, 2021 ATTENTION TO MOTION FOR FINAL RW $750.00 5.25 $3,937.50 APPROVAL AND ALL ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS Jan 26, 2021 ATTENTION TO ALL SUPPORTING RW $750.00 4.9 $3,675.00 DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL MOTIONS Jan 27, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL MOTION RW $750.00 5.4 $4,050.00 Jan 28, 2021 ATTENTION TO MOTION FOR FEES/COST AND RW $750.00 4.75 $3,562.50 CLASS REP FEE AND ALL ACCOMPANYING DECLARATIONS AND MATERIALS Jan 29, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL AND FEES CP $200.00 5 $1,000.00 MOTIONS Jan 29, 2021 ATTENTION TO ALL FINAL APPROVAL/FEES RW $750.00 5.4 $4,050.00 MOTIONS AND DOCUMENTS Jan 30, 2021 ATTENTION TO FINAL APPROVAL MOTIONS RW $750.00 4.5 $3,375.00 Jan 31, 2021 ATTENTION TO ALL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT RW $750.00 6.6 $4,950.00 OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FEES/COSTS MOTION Feb 01, 2021 FINALIZE AND FILE FINAL APPROVAL RW $750.00 8.2 $6,150.00 MOTION AND MOTION FOR FEES/COSTS AND CLASS REP FEE AND ALL ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS Expenses Nov 30, 2018 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 2229013 $1 175.77 Expense $1,175.77 Dec 02, 2018 LWDA PAGA NOTICE $75.00 Expense $75.00 Dec 02, 2018 COPY CHARGES INVOICE #12022018 $8.25 Expense $8.25 Dec 05, 2018 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 2242640 $6.72 Expense $6.72 Dec 06, 2018 FIRST LEGAL NETWORK ORDER #7558675 $130.09 Expense $130.09 Page 15 0f 16 Workman Law Firm, PC DATE DESCRIPTION STAFF RATE HOURS AMOUNT Dec 12, 2018 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 2268894 $6.72 Expense $6.72 Jan 06, 2019 COPY CHARGES INVOICE #01062019 $4.25 Expense $4.25 Feb 17, 2019 COPY CHARGES INVOICE #02172019 $2.00 Expense $2.00 Mar 08, 2019 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 3357546 $6.72 Expense $6.72 Mar 08, 2019 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 2603576 $6.72 Expense $6.72 Apr 28, 2019 COPY CHARGES INVOICE #04282019 $6.25 Expense $6.25 Oct 06, 2019 DAVID A ROTMAN INVOICE #19776 $l3250.00 Expense $13,250.00 Dec 09, 2019 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 3742761 $6.72 Expense $6.72 Dec 15, 2019 BERGER INVOICE #2711 $1437.50 Expense $1,437.50 Dec 29, 2019 COPY CHARGES INVOICE #12292019 $15.40 Expense $15.40 Jan 23, 2020 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 3930042 $6.75 Expense $6.75 May 12, 2020 ROTMAN MEDIATION CHARGE $6625.00 Expense $6,625.00 Jun 14, 2020 FEDEX 508263671 $22.62 Expense $22.62 Aug 10, 2020 GREEN FILING ENVELOPE ID # 4740334 $6.75 Expense $6.75 Sep 10, 2020 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 4908766 $6.75 Expense $6.75 Oct 26, 2020 GREEN FILING ENVELOPE # 5171510 $68.55 Expense $68.55 NOV 10, 2020 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 5275236 $6.75 Expense $6.75 Dec 08, 2020 GREENFILING ENVELOPE ID # 4644868 $6.75 Expense $6.75 Total Fees $352, 1 83.25 Total Expenses $22,888.03 Subtotal $375,071.28 Total $375,071.28 Please Pay $375,071.28 I Timekeeper Summary TIMEKEEPER HOURS FEE BILLED RW - Workman [Partner] 377.55 h $283,162.50 RD - Davey [Associate] 145.25 h $54,468.75 CP - Porter [Legal Assistant] 69.77 h $13,952.00 JM - Miller [Legal Assistant] 3.00 h $600.00 Page 16 of 16 Workman Law Firm, PC EXHIBIT J KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALFRED LAX, Case N0.: 18CV338652 Plaintiff, ORDER CONCERNING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF vs. CLASS ACTION/PAGA SETTLEMENT ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, et al., Defendants. This is a putative class action 0n behalf 0f employees 0f defendant Roto-Rooter Services Company (“Roto-Rooter”), alleging a range 0fwage and hour Violations. Plaintiff Alfred Lax now moves for preliminary approval 0f a settlement, which Roto-Rooter does not oppose. As explained below, the Court GRANTS such approval. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual As alleged in the operative complaint, Roto-Rooter operates throughout the United States, including in California, and provides plumbing repair services, sewer and drain services, and water damage cleanup services t0 residential and commercial customers. (Complaint, 1] 6.) Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/23/2020 12:00 AM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #18CV338652 Envelope: 5344194 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO Plaintiff has worked for Roto-Rooter as a non-exempt service technician for over a decade, traveling t0 customer locations in Roto-Rooter’s vehicles t0 service its customers. (Ibid) Roto-Rooter compensates technicians 0n either a flat-rate 0r commission basis, based 0n the services they provide t0 customers. (Complaint, 1] 8.) Because technicians are non-exempt employees, they are required t0 keep track 0f their hours worked. Roto-Rooter will pay overtime if technicians work more than 8 hours in a day 0r 40 hours in a week. (Ibid.) But Roto-Rooter does not compensate technicians for non-productive time, such as travel time between jobs, equipment repair time, and van maintenance time. (Id., 1] 9.) Roto-Rooter also requires technicians t0 clock in 0n their company-provided cell phones 45 minutes before their shifts, indicating they are ready for duty, but does not pay technicians for the time after they clock in for work. (Ibid) In addition, Roto-Rooter does not separately compensate technicians for missed rest periods. (Complaint, W 13-14.) It also improperly makes deductions from technicians’ wages for their use 0f Roto-Rooter’s vehicles t0 perform their jobs and for Roto-Rooter’s own business expenses. (Id., 1] 17.) It likewise fails t0 reimburse technicians for tools and other equipment they must purchase t0 d0 their jobs. (Id, 1] 19.) Finally, in Violation 0f Labor Code section 2751, Roto-Rooter fails t0 provide employees with a written, signed contract setting forth the method by which it pays commission, and t0 obtain a signed receipt from each employee for this contract. (Id, 1] 20.) B. Procedural Based 0n these allegations, Plaintiff asserts putative class claims for (1) rest break Violations under Labor Code sections 226.7, 226.2, subdivision (a)(l), and the applicable wage order; (2) failure t0 pay for all hours worked and all wages owed at minimum wage in Violation 0f Labor Code sections 5 10 and 1194; (3) inaccurate wage statements in Violation 0f Labor Code sections 226 and 226.2; (4) failure t0 reimburse for work-related expenses in Violation 0f Labor Code section 2802; and (5) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices in Violation 0f Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The complaint defines the putative class as KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO “all service technicians employed by Defendant in California during the four years preceding the filing of this complaint t0 the present.” (Complaint, 1] 23.) The parties now have reached a settlement. Plaintiffnow moves for an order preliminarily approving the settlement, provisionally certifying the settlement class, approving the form and method for providing notice t0 the class, and scheduling a final fairness hearing. The settlement includes a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) that is not alleged in the complaint. The Court provided the parties with a tentative ruling 0n November 18, 2020, and n0 party contested the ruling 0r appeared at the November 19 hearing. The Court now issues its final order. II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL A. Class Action Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice t0 the class was adequate, whether certification 0f the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed t0 the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235 (Wershba), disapproved 0f 0n other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (201 8) 4 Cal.5th 260.) In determining whether a class settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the trial court should consider relevant factors, such as the strength 0f plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent 0f discovery completed and the stage 0f the proceedings, the experience and Views 0f counsel, the presence 0f a governmental participant, and the reaction 0f the class members t0 the proposed settlement. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at pp. 244-245, internal citations and quotations omitted.) In general, the most important factor is the strength 0f the plaintiffs’ case 0n the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement. (See Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130 (Kullar).) But the trial court is free t0 engage in a balancing and weighing 0f factors depending 0n the circumstances 0f each case. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245.) The trial court must examine the “proposed settlement agreement t0 the extent necessary t0 reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product 0f fraud 0r overreaching by, 0r collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate t0 all concerned.” (Ibid, citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) The burden is 0n the proponent 0f the settlement t0 show that it is fair and reasonable. However “a presumption 0f fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient t0 allow counsel and the court t0 act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage 0f objectors is small.” (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245, citation omitted.) The presumption does not permit the Court t0 “give rubber-stamp approval” t0 a settlement; in all cases, it must “independently and objectively analyze the evidence and circumstances before it in order t0 determine whether the settlement is in the best interests 0f those whose claims will be extinguished,” based 0n a sufficiently developed factual record. (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 130.) B. PAGA Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (1) provides that “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any penalties sought as part 0f a proposed settlement agreement pursuant t0” PAGA. The court’s review “ensur[es] that any negotiated resolution is fair t0 those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) Seventy-five percent 0f any penalties recovered under PAGA g0 t0 the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), leaving the remaining twenty-five percent for the aggrieved employees. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380.) “[W]hen a PAGA claim is settled, the relief provided [should] be genuine and meaningful, consistent with the underlying purpose 0f the statute t0 benefit the public ....” (Villalobos v. Calandri Sonrise Farm LP (CD. Cal., July 22, 2015, N0. CV122615PSGJEMX) KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO 2015 WL 12732709, at * 1 3.) The settlement must be reasonable in light 0f the potential verdict value. (See O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 201 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1135 [rej ecting settlement 0f less than one percent 0f the potential verdict].) But a permissible settlement may be substantially discounted, given that courts often exercise their discretion t0 award PAGA penalties below the statutory maximum even where a claim succeeds at trial. (See Viceral v. Mistras Group, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2016, N0. 15-CV-02198-EMC) 2016 WL 5907869, at *8-9.) III. SETTLEMENT PROCESS According t0 Plaintiff, the parties conducted both formal and informal discovery, including the review and analysis 0f Roto-Rooter’s policies and procedures, time and payroll records, and employment records, as well as expert analyses and interviews 0f class members and potential witnesses. The two sides exchanged extensive data and information regarding the claims at issue before engaging in two mediation sessions and additional settlement negotiations. The first mediation was conducted before David Rotman 0n November 5, 2019, and the parties did not reach an agreement at that time. They continued t0 negotiate, however, and participated in a second mediation 0n May 27, 2020. They again failed t0 reach agreement at the mediation, but continued their efforts with Mr. Rotman’s assistance and ultimately achieved the agreement before the Court. IV. SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS The non-reversionary gross settlement amount is $2,598,000. Attorney fees 0f up t0 $825,000 (one-third 0f the gross settlement), litigation costs not t0 exceed $25,000, and administration costs 0f approximately $15,000 will be paid from the gross settlement. $50,000 will be allocated t0 PAGA penalties, 75 percent 0fwhich will be paid t0 the LWDA. The named plaintiff will also seek an enhancement award 0f $20,000. The net settlement, approximately $1,675,500, will be distributed t0 individual class members proportionally based 0n their weeks worked during the class period. The average KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO settlement payment will be approximately $12,411 t0 each 0f the 135 class members.1 Class members will not be required t0 submit a claim t0 receive their payments. For tax purposes, settlement awards will be allocated 25 percent t0 wages and 75 percent t0 reimbursements, interest, and penalties. Funds associated with checks uncashed after 90 days will be redistributed t0 class members who cashed their checks if at least $4,500 remains; otherwise, remaining funds will be distributed cypres t0 Legal Aid at Work. Class members who d0 not opt out 0f the settlement will release all claims, debts, etc. “0f every nature and description, whether known 0r unknown, for wages, damages, penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, 0r equitable relief arising out 0f the allegations set forth in the Action and Complaint t0 the extent that such claims arise from Settlement Class Members’ employment with Defendant,” including specified wage and hour claims and associated claims for PAGA penalties. V. FAIRNESS OF SETTLEMENT As explained in more detail in the Declaration 0f Robin G. Workman supporting plaintiff’s motion, based on plaintiff’s analysis, the maximum value 0f the claims in this action is $3,635,620: $1,073,896 for the claims arising from failure to pay technicians for nonproductive timez; $1 19,649 for failure t0 separately compensate for rest breaks; $1,078,103 for failure t0 provide rest breaks; $135,000 for failure t0 reimburse technicians for tools and equipment; $208,000 for wage statement Violations; and $572,000 in derivative PAGA penalties, plus $448,972 in waiting time penalties. Because the claim under Labor Code section 2751 does not give rise t0 damages, but serves only as a predicate for PAGA penalties, the penalties arising from this claim are included in the value 0f the PAGA penalties. Finally, because discovery 1 Plaintiff indicates that the average payment t0 each class member will be approximately $20,000, but does not explain how this average was calculated. His estimate appears t0 assume that class members will receive a share 0f the gross settlement rather than the net settlement. 2 The Court assumes that this estimate includes the value 0f plaintiff’s claims arising from Roto- Rooter’s alleged requirement that technicians clock in 0n their company-provided cell phones 45 minutes prior t0 their shifts. KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO revealed that Roto-Rooter did not make improper deductions from technicians’ wages, this claim was given n0 value. The settlement thus represents 71 percent 0f the total value 0f the case as estimated by plaintiff, a good result for the class in the Court’s View. At the Court’s direction, plaintiff” s counsel filed a supplemental declaration explaining that the settlement class includes only technicians at Roto-Rooter’s Menlo Park and Bristol locations because the policies at issue “applied only t0 the Menlo Park location (which was the only Roto-Rooter-owned location at the time 0f the filing) and the Bristol location (which Roto- Rooter acquired well into the class period). The other Roto-Rooter locations in California either were franchises not owned by Defendant 0r later-acquired facilities operated under a different compensation structure.” Plaintiff” s counsel submits that under the circumstances, the action may be dismissed as t0 technicians who worked at other locations without notice t0 these individuals, who will suffer n0 prejudice. (See Cal. Rules 0f Court, rule 3.770.) The Court agrees that this is appropriate. The settlement also provides for the resolution 0f a PAGA claim that is not included in the operative complaint. Counsel’s supplemental declaration attaches plaintiff’s PAGA notice letter, which was submitted t0 the LWDA in November 0f 20 1 8, but does not confirm that the parties’ settlement was submitted t0 the LWDA as required by Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (l)(2). Plaintiff shall submit the settlement agreement t0 the LWDA immediately if he has not already done so, and shall confirm that this requirement has been satisfied prior t0 final approval. In addition, plaintiff must submit an amended complaint that includes his PAGA claim prior t0 final approval. (See Trotsky v. Los Angeles Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 134, 148 [“the purported settlement 0f . .. claims outside the scope 0f the action [is] not valid” absent amendment 0f the complaint], disapproved 0f 0n another ground in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (201 8) 4 Cal.5th 260.) Considering plaintiff” s original and supplemental filings, the Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable t0 the class and the PAGA allocation is genuine, meaningful, and fair t0 those impacted. The settlement achieves substantial individual payments and recovers KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO a large percentage 0f the total maximum value 0f the case 0n behalf 0f the class, without the risks and delay that would result from further litigation. The Court has reviewed the settlement agreement resolving plaintiff” s individual action for discrimination and harassment against Roto-Rooter, Alfred Lax v. Roto-Rooter Services Company (Super. Ct. Santa Clara County, Case N0. 20CV3 62444), and finds n0 reason t0 conclude that it renders the settlement 0f this case unfair t0 those affected. The Court retains an independent right and responsibility t0 review the requested attorney fees and award only so much as it determines t0 be reasonable. (See Garabedz’an v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone C0. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 127-128.) While 1/3 0f the common fund for attorney fees is generally considered reasonable, counsel shall submit lodestar information before the final approval hearing in this matter so the Court can compare the lodestar information with the requested fees. (See Lafliz‘te v. Robert Halflntem. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 504 [trial courts have discretion t0 double-check the reasonableness 0f a percentage fee through a lodestar calculation] .) VI. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS Plaintiff requests that the following settlement class be provisionally certified: all current and former non-exempt technicians employed by Defendant in its Menlo Park and Bristol locations, which total 135 technicians, 99 technicians at the Menlo Park location and 36 at the Bristol location at any time from November 30, 2014, through the date 0f Preliminary Approval 0f the class action settlement and who d0 not exclude themselves from the Settlement. A. Legal Standard for Certifying a Class for Settlement Purposes Rule 3.769(d) 0f the California Rules 0f Court states that “[t]he court may make an order approving 0r denying certification 0f a provisional settlement class after [a] preliminary settlement hearing.” California Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 382 authorizes certification 0f a class “when the question is one 0f a common 0r general interest, 0fmany persons, 0r when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable t0 bring them all before the court ....” KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO Section 382 requires the plaintiff t0 demonstrate by a preponderance 0f the evidence: (1) an ascertainable class and (2) a well-defined community 0f interest among the class members. (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326, 332 (Sav-On Drug Stores).) “Other relevant considerations include the probability that each class member will come forward ultimately t0 prove his 0r her separate claim t0 a portion 0f the total recovery and whether the class approach would actually serve t0 deter and redress alleged wrongdoing.” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil C0. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435.) The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that class treatment will yield “substantial benefits” t0 both “the litigants and t0 the court.” (Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court (1976) 18 Cal.3d 381, 385.) In the settlement context, “the court’s evaluation 0f the certification issues is somewhat different from its consideration 0f certification issues when the class action has not yet settled.” (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 93.) As n0 trial is anticipated in the settlement-only context, the case management issues inherent in the ascertainable class determination need not be confronted, and the court’s review is more lenient in this respect. (Id. at pp. 93-94.) But considerations designed t0 protect absentees by blocking unwarranted 0r overbroad class definitions require heightened scrutiny in the settlement-only class context, since the court will lack the usual opportunity t0 adjust the class as proceedings unfold. (Id. at p. 94.) B. Ascertainable Class A class is ascertainable “when it is defined in terms 0f objective characteristics and common transactional facts that make the ultimate identification 0f class members possible when that identification becomes necessary.” (Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 955, 980 (Noel).) A class definition satisfying these requirements puts members 0f the class 0n notice that their rights may be adjudicated in the proceeding, so they must decide whether t0 intervene, opt out, 0r d0 nothing and live with the consequences. This kind 0f class definition also advances due process by supplying a concrete basis for determining who will and will not be bound by (0r benefit from) any judgment. (Noel, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 980, citation omitted.) KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO “As a rule, a representative plaintiff in a class action need not introduce evidence establishing how notice 0f the action will be communicated t0 individual class members in order t0 show an ascertainable class.” (Noel, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 984.) Still, it has long been held that “[c]lass members are ‘ascertainable’ where they may be readily identified by reference t0 official records.” (Rose v. City ofHayward (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 926, 932, disapproved 0f 0n another ground by Noel, supra, 7 Cal.5th 955; see also Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 966, 975-976 [“The defined class 0f all HD Package subscribers is precise, with objective characteristics and transactional parameters, and can be determined by DIRECTV’S own account records. N0 more is needed.”].) Here, the estimated 135 class members are readily identifiable based 0n Roto-Rooter’s records, and the settlement class is clearly defined based 0n obj ective characteristics. The supplemental declaration filed by plaintiff” s counsel explains why the settlement class is limited to Menlo Park and Bristol technicians. The Court finds that the settlement class is numerous, ascertainable, and appropriately defined. C. Community 0f Interest The "community-of-interest” requirement encompasses three factors: (1) predominant questions 0f law 0r fact, (2) class representatives with claims 0r defenses typical 0f the class, and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. (Sav-On Drug Stores, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 326, 332.) For the first community 0f interest factor, “[i]n order t0 determine whether common questions 0f fact predominate the trial court must examine the issues framed by the pleadings and the law applicable t0 the causes 0f action alleged.” (Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, 916 (Hicks).) The court must also examine evidence 0f any conflict 0f interest among the proposed class members. (See J.P. Morgan & C0., Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 195, 215.) The ultimate question is whether the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so numerous 0r substantial that the maintenance 0f a class action would be good for the judicial process and t0 the litigants. (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096, 1104-1 105 10 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO (Lockheed Martin).) “As a general rule if the defendant’s liability can be determined by facts common t0 all members 0f the class, a class will be certified even if the members must individually prove their damages.” (Hicks, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 916.) Here, common legal and factual issues predominate. Plaintiff’s claims all arise from Roto-Rooter’s wage and hour practices applied t0 the similarly-situated class members. As t0 the second factor, The typicality requirement is meant t0 ensure that the class representative is able t0 adequately represent the class and focus 0n common issues. It is only when a defense unique t0 the class representative will be a major focus 0f the litigation, 0r when the class representative’s interests are antagonistic t0 0r in conflict with the objectives 0f those she purports t0 represent that denial 0f class certification is appropriate. But even then, the court should determine if it would be feasible t0 divide the class into subclasses t0 eliminate the conflict and allow the class action t0 be maintained. (Medrazo v. Honda OfNorth Hollywood (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 89, 99, internal Citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted.) Like other members 0f the class, Plaintiff was employed by Roto-Rooter as an hourly employee and alleges that he experienced the Violations at issue. The anticipated defenses are not unique to Plaintiff, and there is n0 indication that Plaintiff’s interests are otherwise in conflict with those 0f the class. Finally, adequacy 0f representation “depends 0n whether the plaintiff” s attorney is qualified t0 conduct the proposed litigation and the plaintiffs interests are not antagonistic t0 the interests 0f the class.” (McGhee v. Bank ofAmerica (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 442, 450.) The class representative does not necessarily have t0 incur all 0f the damages suffered by each different class member in order t0 provide adequate representation t0 the class. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 238.) “Differences in individual class members’ proof 0f damages [are] not fatal t0 class certification. Only a conflict that goes t0 the very subject matter 0f the litigation 11 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO will defeat a party’s claim 0f representative status.” (Ibid., internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) Plaintiff has the same interest in maintaining this action as any class member would have. Further, he has hired experienced counsel. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated adequacy 0f representation. D. Substantial Benefits 0f Class Certification “[A] class action should not be certified unless substantial benefits accrue both t0 litigants and the courts. . . .” (Basurco v. 21st Century Ins. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 110, 120, internal quotation marks omitted.) The question is whether a class action would be superior t0 individual lawsuits. (Ibid) “Thus, even if questions 0f law 0r fact predominate, the lack 0f superiority provides an alternative ground t0 deny class certification.” (Ibid.) Generally, “a class action is proper where it provides small claimants with a method 0f obtaining redress and when numerous parties suffer injury 0f insufficient size t0 warrant individual action.” (Id. at pp. 120- 1 2 1 , internal quotation marks omitted.) Here, there are an estimated 135 members 0f the proposed class. It would be inefficient for the Court t0 hear and decide the same issues separately and repeatedly for each class member. Further, it would be cost-prohibitive for each class member t0 file suit individually, as each member would have the potential for little t0 n0 monetary recovery. It is clear that a class action provides substantial benefits t0 both the litigants and the Court in this case. VII. NOTICE The content 0f a class notice is subj ect t0 court approval. (Cal. Rules 0f Court, rule 3.769(f).) “The notice must contain an explanation 0f the proposed settlement and procedures for class members t0 follow in filing written objections t0 it and in arranging t0 appear at the settlement hearing and state any objections t0 the proposed settlement.” (Ibid) In determining the manner 0f the notice, the court must consider: “(1) The interests 0f the class; (2) The type 0f relief requested; (3) The stake 0f the individual class members; (4) The cost 0f notifying class members; (5) The resources 0f the parties; (6) The possible prejudice t0 class members who d0 12 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO not receive notice; and (7) The res judicata effect 0n class members.” (Cal. Rules 0f Court, rule 3.766(6).) Here, the notice describes the lawsuit, explains the settlement, and instructs class members that they may opt out 0f the settlement 0r obj ect. The gross settlement amount and estimated deductions are provided, along with each class member’s estimated payment. Class members are given 45 days t0 request exclusion from the class 0r submit a written obj ection t0 the settlement. The notice instructs class members that they may appear at the final fairness hearing and make an oral obj ection even if they d0 not submit a written obj ection. At the Court’s direction, the notice was modified t0 display class members’ estimated payments and work week information in bold within a box set off from the rest 0f the text 0n the first page 0f the notice. The chart describing class members’ rights and options was modified t0 include an explanation 0f class members’ rights t0 object t0 the settlement. The “DO NOTHING” option was modified t0 instruct class members that they will receive a settlement payment if approved by the Court and t0 remind them t0 keep their current address 0n file with the claims administrator. With regard t0 appearances at the final fairness hearing, the notice was further modified t0 instruct class members as follows: Due t0 the COVID-19 pandemic, hearings before the judge overseeing this case are currently being conducted remotely with the assistance 0f a third-party service provider, CourtCall. If that remains the case at the time 0f the final fairness hearing, class members who wish t0 appear at the final fairness hearing should contact class counsel t0 arrange a remote appearance through CourtCall, at least three days before the hearing if possible. Any CourtCall fees for an appearance by an objecting class member shall be paid by class counsel. With these modifications, the form 0f notice is approved. Turning t0 the notice procedure, the parties have selected Rust Consulting, Inc. as the settlement administrator. The administrator will mail the notice packet within 20 calendar days 0f preliminary approval, after updating class members’ addresses using the National Change 0f 13 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO Address Database. Any notice packets returned as undeliverable will be re-mailed t0 any forwarding address provided 0r located through skip tracing. These notice procedures are appropriate and are approved. VIII. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Court GRANTS Plaintiff” s motion for preliminary approval. The final approval hearing shall take place 0n February 25, 2021 at 1:30 pm. in Dept. 1. The following class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes: all current and former non-exempt technicians employed by Defendant in its Menlo Park and Bristol locations, which total 135 technicians, 99 technicians at the Menlo Park location and 36 at the Bristol location at any time from November 30, 2014, through the date 0f Preliminary Approval 0f the class action settlement and who d0 not exclude themselves from the Settlement. By February 11, 2021, Plaintiff” s counsel Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide lodestar information, as discussed earlier in this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: The Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni Judge 0f the Superior Court 14 November 22, 2020