Cobell lawyers seek to double their fees up to $223 million

In asking for an increase in lawyer fees from $99 million to more than double that figure, here are some excerpts from the fee petition submitted Jan. 25, 2011 by Cobell v. Salazar, lead counsel Dennis Gingold:

Prior to retaining Class Counsel, Ms. Cobell interviewed a number of attorneys, including those who specialize in the representation of tribes. Repeatedly, she was turned down because most believed this case would be impossible to prosecute given jurisdictional hurdles, complexity, remedial options, and cost. Some declined because of the time required and the risk involved. Others declined over concerns that Interior officials, who have jurisdiction over other client matters, would be angered.

Attorneys who handle cases on a contingency take “upon themselves the risk that they will receive no payment at all [and] generally receive far more in winning cases than they would if they charged an hourly rate.” Without a reasonable incentive, lawyers would be “less willing to take on cases that involve either unsettled legal issues or clients who might otherwise go unrepresented.” Freeport Partners, 2006 WL 627140, at *13. Therefore, “[p]ublic policy is served” by awarding higher fees to lawyers who assume the risk. Here, Class Counsel assumed the risk that they would be paid little or nothing for the more than $90 million in time they invested in this case.55 Nonetheless, they litigated vigorously…

Class Counsel have achieved a “stunning” landmark victory in this case and through their efforts, approximately $9 billion in tangible benefits have been conferred on the Plaintiff classes. No lawyers have done so much for so many people in this Circuit. No settlement with the United States has been greater. Most importantly, in doing so, they have accomplished that which Congress could not do and the Attorney General would not do and have aided a group long abused to stand up against the abuse. Accordingly, Plaintiffs petition this Court to award fees, expenses, and costs for Class Counsel through December 7, 2009 in accordance with controlling law. Though Plaintiffs assert $99.9 million in keeping with a “clear sailing” clause, that amount is so far below governing standards that it would be inconsistent with controlling law, which prescribes a fee award of at least $223 million and $1,276,598 in expenses and costs.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Dennis M. Gingold DENNIS M. GINGOLD