NCAA proposes deep cuts in O’Bannnon class counsel fee application

Plaintiffs counsel Michael Hausfeld
The NCAA has filed its opposition to the plaintiffs lawyers motion for $50 million in counsel fees in O’Bannon v. NCAA. The NCAA argues that plaintiffs should recover only $9 million in counsel fees and proposes steep reductions in cost recovery.
In August 2014 U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkens ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust law by preventing student-athletes from being compensated for their name, image and likeness rights.
Wilken’s ruling allows schools to pay athletes licensing money into a trust fund starting in 2016. Financial damages were not part of the trial, but Wilken said the plaintiffs “shall recover their costs from the NCAA.”
The NCAA argues that plaintiffs lawyers application is flawed in that it they may not recover fees for work done on the case prior to September 1, 2012 when their theory of the case changed; they may not recover fees for work done solely to advance claims upon which they did not prevail in substantial part, or for claims that were essentially abandoned; nor may they recover for “work that was unnecessary, redundant and inefficient, unsupported by plaintiffs’ billing records, or that did not reflect sound billing judgment”. Finally the NCAA argues that much of plaintiffs’s claims of costs are “unsupported by their submission or the law”.

via OTHERWISE: NCAA proposes deep cuts in O'Bannnon class counsel fee application.

NJ Supreme Court Considers Disgorgement Remedy for Disloyal GC // NJLaw Journal

In Kaye v. Rosefielde the Appellate Division of Superior Court held that a lawyer who worked as an independent contractor at the jobs of General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer had an implied attorney-client relationship with Kaye the principal of two Atlantic City businesses.  That subjected the lawyer to RPC 1.8 governing lawyers business involvements with current clients.

The App Div affirmed most of the trial judge’s findings but limited the remedies.  Upheld were voiding the lawyer’s interests in businesses he formed for the client, awarding counsel fees, and punitive damages. But Judge Nugent  denied the demand that the lawyer disgorge the $550,000/year he had been paid as in-house counsel and personal counsel.  Wages paid are not damages defendants have argued.

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification “limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Division erred by affirming the trial court’s holding that economic damages are a necessary prerequisite for disgorgement of the employee’s salary.” – gwc

via OTHERWISE: NJ Supreme Court Considers Disgorgement Remedy for Disloyal GC // NJLaw Journal.