WASHINGTON, March 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge in New

York agreed to grant $3.16 million in legal fees for lawyers who

sued Kimberly-Clark ( KMB ) over the labeling of its "flushable"

wipes, dismissing objections that the attorneys would earn more

than the consumers they represented in the class action.

U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen in Brooklyn on Thursday approved

the fees as part of a settlement in the case that netted class

members $1 million, finding that the deal was fair, reasonable

and adequate.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the settlement and

sent the fee dispute back to Chen for a second look last year,

saying the judge needed to more fully consider the balance

between the attorney fees and the damages the class received.

The appeals court did not say how much the attorneys should get.

Chen in her new ruling said the fee "ratio in this case

raises superficial concerns," but other factors support the

settlement's overall fairness.

Kimberly-Clark ( KMB ) and the lead plaintiffs lawyers did not

immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit, filed in 2014, accused Kimberly-Clark ( KMB ) of

mislabeling wipes as "flushable" despite their potential to clog

and damage plumbing. The company has denied wrongdoing and says

its products perform as advertised.

Kimberly-Clark ( KMB ) agreed in 2022 to pay up to $20 million to

resolve the case. But by the claims deadline, consumers had

sought only about $1 million, leaving roughly $19 million

unclaimed and retained by the company.

Ted Frank, a conservative public interest lawyer and director of

the non-profit Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, challenged the

settlement and the attorneys' fees, telling the lower court and

2nd Circuit that the fee award violates "intuitive notions of

justice."

Frank on Friday said he plans to further appeal Chen's

latest order.

"The court erred in thinking of this as an attorney fee

dispute in isolation, rather than looking at the holistic

problem of class counsel self-dealing at the expense of their

clients," Frank said.

He said it is "fundamentally unfair for attorneys to negotiate

full compensation for themselves at three times total class

compensation while leaving the vast majority of the class with

nothing."

Chen in her order said the fee reflects "extensive" work by

the plaintiffs' lawyers over many years and that the nature of

the case, involving a low-cost consumer product, meant "the

potential recovery for class members was inherently and

unavoidably limited."

The case is Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp ( KMB ) et al, U.S. District

Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 1:14-cv-01142-PKC-RML.

For plaintiffs: Samuel Rudman and Vincent Serra of Robbins

Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

For objector: Anna St. John of Hamilton Lincoln Law

Institute

Read more:

US appeals court says law firm's size doesn't limit legal

fees

As lawyer rates surge, US firm charges $4,000 an hour for

top partners

Lawyers face objections to multimillion-dollar fees after

no-cash settlement with Schwab