*

Hagens Berman defends conduct in Seattle and Philadelphia

cases

*

JPMorgan seeks to cut off legal fee spigot for Charlie

Javice

*

Norton Rose earns payout from Texas in Google privacy case

By David Thomas and Mike Scarcella

Oct 30 (Reuters) - (Billable Hours is Reuters' weekly

report on lawyers and money. Please send tips or suggestions to

[email protected].)

A leading national plaintiffs' law firm is playing defense

in two unrelated class actions after judges criticized the

firm's handling of its clients' claims.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is hoping to revive a case it

spearheaded in federal court in Seattle against Amazon and Apple

after a judge dismissed the case last month, determining that

the firm was not forthright about its client's efforts to drop

out.

In Philadelphia, Hagens Berman has been dogged for years by

litigation misconduct claims in cases it brought over alleged

injuries from the drug thalidomide. Now, the firm is seeking to

disqualify a federal judge who is weighing new sanctions against

it.

Hagens Berman's managing partner, Steve Berman, defended his

firm's conduct in both cases in an email to Reuters.

U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson in Seattle last month

found that Hagens Berman misled the court, Apple and Amazon

about the formerly sole plaintiff's intent to withdraw from the

case last year while the firm attempted to add new claimants.

Evanson said she relied on representations that the

plaintiff had not withdrawn when she allowed his lawyers to

amend the complaint in May and add two more consumers.

The plaintiff, Steven Floyd, had told his attorneys at the

firm in January 2024 that he wanted to withdraw because he did

not want to participate in the discovery process. Evanson said

in a prior order that Hagens Berman did not immediately disclose

the development and instead created the impression that Floyd

suddenly became unreachable for reasons not related to the

lawsuit.

Evanson in May awarded more than $223,000 in legal fees to

Amazon and Apple as a sanction against Hagens Berman. The two

tech companies are poised to file another petition for legal

fees next week.

Hagens Berman defended its conduct in a filing on Monday that

asked Evanson to amend her September 29 decision dismissing the

case. The firm argued that under Washington state's professional

rules for lawyers, it had a duty of confidentiality to Floyd.

"There may have been other ways to proceed - perhaps better

courses of action identifiable with the benefit of hindsight -

but counsel acted with mindful observance of their ethical

obligations," Hagens Berman said.

Berman in an email noted the firm's Monday filing was backed

by three expert declarations challenging the judge's

determination. "We have now explained to the court how we

properly disclosed what we could and followed all ethical

rules," he said.

The proposed class action accused Apple and Amazon of

conspiring to artificially inflate the price of iPhones and

iPads sold on Amazon's platform.

Spokespersons for Amazon and Apple, which have denied the

claims, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

THALIDOMIDE CASE

In the Philadelphia litigation, Hagens Berman since 2011 has

represented plaintiffs who claimed major drugmakers concealed

the dangers of thalidomide, which pregnant women used to treat

morning sickness until its use was discontinued in the 1960s due

to birth defects.

The litigation faced hurdles from the outset over evidence

suggesting many plaintiffs had long known of thalidomide's role

in their injuries. Hagens Berman reached a settlement with

drugmaker GSK, formerly GlaxoSmithKline, in 2014, agreeing to

drop claims against the company in a deal that U.S. District

Judge Paul Diamond later said had "apparently benefited Hagens

Berman to the detriment of its clients."

In 2015, Diamond imposed sanctions for what he called

"bad-faith advocacy," finding Hagens Berman pursued claims it

knew were baseless or time-barred.

In an October 2023 report, a special master appointed by the

court to help resolve evidence disputes recommended new

sanctions against Hagens Berman over its prosecution of the

cases, and found that a lawyer who was then at the firm had

doctored a medical expert's report to pressure a client into

dropping her claim.

"Time and again, Mr. Berman personally swore to the veracity

of things he did not know and should have known, and that were

actually and demonstrably false," special master William Hangley

said.

In a filing last year, Hagens Berman called Hangley's report

baseless and said it was outside the scope of his authority and

violated the due process rights of the firm and Berman.

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld Hangley's report in

August, but the judge has not yet issued a ruling on sanctions

against the firm.

Last week, Hagens Berman filed court papers seeking to force

Diamond's recusal from further proceedings related to Hangley's

report. The law firm cited what it called an "appearance of

bias" stemming from extensive communications between the judge

and the special master.

Berman in an email said his firm has "thoroughly explained

why we had a good faith basis" for the lawsuit. The fact that

the case has not succeeded is not ground for sanctions, he said,

adding that personal injury cases "are lost in every court on a

finding of a lack of causation or an exclusion of an expert."

A representative for GSK did not immediately respond to a

request for comment.

-- JPMorgan Chase has asked a judge in Delaware to terminate its

obligation to advance legal fees to entrepreneur Charlie Javice,

who was sentenced last month to more than seven years in prison

for defrauding the bank into buying her college financial aid

startup Frank for $175 million.

In a October 24 court filing, JPMorgan said Javice has demanded

reimbursement for "patently excessive and unreasonable" legal

expenses related to her criminal defense in the fraud case. Law

firm Greenberg Traurig represents the bank.

JPMorgan says it has already advanced approximately $115

million in legal fees, including $60.1 million to Javice alone,

and claims the amount exceeds any reasonable standard for

defense costs.

The bank in a brief public filing accused Javice of engaging

five separate law firms - one of which received over $35 million

- and continuing to use all of them even in post-conviction

proceedings. The filing did not identify any of Javice's defense

firms, and other documents were submitted under seal.

-- Alphabet's Google has agreed to pay up to $190

million in legal fees to private law firms representing Texas as

part of a $1.375 billion consumer privacy settlement with the

state.

Google in a court filing also said it would pay $71 million in

legal fees to the Texas attorney general's office as part of the

May settlement.

Texas's lawyers at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and Google

asked the state court in Midland to issue a final judgment based

on the settlement. Norton Rose and the attorney general's office

did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

State attorneys general routinely hire private law firms to help

them pursue major lawsuits against companies. Texas is currently

working with law firms Cooper & Kirk and Buzbee Law Firm for an

antitrust lawsuit against asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard and

State Street.

Read more:

Fighting Trump and defending Tesla, lawyer Paul Clement is

everywhere now

California law sets up new contingency fee-sharing roadblock

Elite colleges target lawyers' funding in antitrust class

certification fight