Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

How Much Can Bankruptcy Lawyers' Fees Be Raised in the Final Application?

By Jeff Chorney
September 29, 2004

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali approved nearly all of the final fee requests for law firms and other consultants working on the massive Pacific Gas & Electric Co. bankruptcy.

Montali's OK puts the final tally for more than 3 years' worth of work at about $450 million to $475 million, according to an accounting by the Office of the U.S. Trustee. Of the total, about $100 million goes to law firms representing the utility in different capacities.

That makes the case one of the most expensive bankruptcy matters ' if not the most expensive ' in the history of the Northern District of California.

“We like to think this is a success, but others not close to it might think it was a waste of money,” Montali said, prompting laughter from the courtroom.

The rulings don't translate into a single big payday. Law firms, accountants and other hired help have received incremental payments as the case progressed.

Montali heard protests to the final round of fee requests ' but there weren't many. A gaggle of lawyers piled into his courtroom, but most only had to stay long enough to hear the judge say “no objection.”

One notable exception involved the Los Angeles office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, which represents the former Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee was appointed after PG&E declared bankruptcy in the midst of California's 2001 energy crisis.

Milbank had originally agreed to charge $595 per hour, which the firm said was a discount from its top rate of $725. Now that the case is finished, Milbank wants to be compensated at a higher hourly rate and has asked Montali to increase its fees by about $780,000.

In 3 years of work, the firm has already billed about $14 million.

The U.S. Trustee and PG&E have objected to the request and asked Montali to deny it.

“It seems that what they're really asking for is a bonus,” said Edward Myrtle, trial attorney for the trustee.

But Milbank partner Robert Jay Moore argued that there was nothing in the original agreement that prevented the firm from asking for the higher rate. He said Milbank put down $595 to avoid a fee fight in the early stages of the high visibility case.

“We were not intending to waive our right to come back in the final fee application,” Moore told Montali.

Montali seemed truly divided on the matter. He said $780,000 is an “infinitesimal” amount of money compared to the total spent on law firms and other consultants. On the other hand, that's also a lot of money.

“What do I do with [the suggestion] that you reduced your rates to get the business?” Montali asked Moore.

But the judge was no easier with Myrtle, nor with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin partner James Lopes, who represents PG&E.

“I think the issue here is they were employed on the basis that those were the rates they were going to charge,” Lopes said.

“But don't we have … an application with ambiguity?” Montali asked.

The judge said he needed several days or at least several hours to come to a decision.

In the meantime, a handful of other firms got the okay for their total bills. All of the firms represented PG&E in some capacity.

Cooley Godward billed about $14.1 million; Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, $24.8 million; Keker & Van Nest, $1.8 million; Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, $1.9 million; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, $4 million; and Chicago's Winston & Strawn, $3.8 million.

The utility's main counsel, Howard Rice, billed $37.1 million



Jeff Chorney The Recorder A&FP

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali approved nearly all of the final fee requests for law firms and other consultants working on the massive Pacific Gas & Electric Co. bankruptcy.

Montali's OK puts the final tally for more than 3 years' worth of work at about $450 million to $475 million, according to an accounting by the Office of the U.S. Trustee. Of the total, about $100 million goes to law firms representing the utility in different capacities.

That makes the case one of the most expensive bankruptcy matters ' if not the most expensive ' in the history of the Northern District of California.

“We like to think this is a success, but others not close to it might think it was a waste of money,” Montali said, prompting laughter from the courtroom.

The rulings don't translate into a single big payday. Law firms, accountants and other hired help have received incremental payments as the case progressed.

Montali heard protests to the final round of fee requests ' but there weren't many. A gaggle of lawyers piled into his courtroom, but most only had to stay long enough to hear the judge say “no objection.”

One notable exception involved the Los Angeles office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, which represents the former Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee was appointed after PG&E declared bankruptcy in the midst of California's 2001 energy crisis.

Milbank had originally agreed to charge $595 per hour, which the firm said was a discount from its top rate of $725. Now that the case is finished, Milbank wants to be compensated at a higher hourly rate and has asked Montali to increase its fees by about $780,000.

In 3 years of work, the firm has already billed about $14 million.

The U.S. Trustee and PG&E have objected to the request and asked Montali to deny it.

“It seems that what they're really asking for is a bonus,” said Edward Myrtle, trial attorney for the trustee.

But Milbank partner Robert Jay Moore argued that there was nothing in the original agreement that prevented the firm from asking for the higher rate. He said Milbank put down $595 to avoid a fee fight in the early stages of the high visibility case.

“We were not intending to waive our right to come back in the final fee application,” Moore told Montali.

Montali seemed truly divided on the matter. He said $780,000 is an “infinitesimal” amount of money compared to the total spent on law firms and other consultants. On the other hand, that's also a lot of money.

“What do I do with [the suggestion] that you reduced your rates to get the business?” Montali asked Moore.

But the judge was no easier with Myrtle, nor with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin partner James Lopes, who represents PG&E.

“I think the issue here is they were employed on the basis that those were the rates they were going to charge,” Lopes said.

“But don't we have … an application with ambiguity?” Montali asked.

The judge said he needed several days or at least several hours to come to a decision.

In the meantime, a handful of other firms got the okay for their total bills. All of the firms represented PG&E in some capacity.

Cooley Godward billed about $14.1 million; Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, $24.8 million; Keker & Van Nest, $1.8 million; Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, $1.9 million; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, $4 million; and Chicago's Winston & Strawn, $3.8 million.

The utility's main counsel, Howard Rice, billed $37.1 million



Jeff Chorney The Recorder A&FP

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace Image

Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.

Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO Image

This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.

While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum Image

For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.

Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed Image

In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.

From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World Image

Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.