Biglaw billing drama is usually a closed-door affair, but every now and then, the curtain gets yanked back. And when it does, the numbers are… not subtle.
As reported by Law.com, that’s exactly what’s happening to WilmerHale, which is now staring down some very public scrutiny over a $35 million legal bill that has a judge in London raising an eyebrow… and ordering a full-on assessment.
The client in question is Alberto Safra, son of the late Joseph Safra, whose $23 billion fortune has apparently spawned the kind of family dispute that keeps elite litigators very, very busy. Safra hired WilmerHale to represent him in that fight, and over the course of two years, the meter ran up to $35 million, with $18.9 million still outstanding.
Safra has now gone to London’s High Court to challenge the invoices, triggering judicial scrutiny of the firm’s charges. And according to the court’s findings, there are some choice entries.
We’re talking about a single day where WilmerHale billed more than $162,000. We’re talking about top partners charging as much as $2,095 per hour — a tidy $265/hour increase from what had been agreed just 15 months earlier. And we’re talking about Washington, D.C. partner John Trenor logging 19.3 hours in a single day, while nine timekeepers collectively racked up 130.2 hours in one 24-hour stretch. (Hope everyone remembered to hydrate.)
The real legal issue isn’t just whether the bills are eye-popping, but whether they’re insulated from challenge. WilmerHale argued that its arrangement with Safra constituted a “contentious business agreement” (CBA), a statutory mechanism under English law that can shield legal fees from court assessment.
But the court wasn’t buying everything WilmerHale was throwing down.
Judge Leonard zeroed in on the firm’s ability to unilaterally increase its hourly rates, something he found “irreconcilable” with the CBA framework. The court found that WilmerHale increased rates twice during the retainer period without notifying Safra, calling it “an evident failure to give adequate costs information.”
On the positive side for the Biglaw firm, Judge Leonard acknowledged that Trenor and his team “worked extremely hard, under substantial pressure, to help the claimant achieve his goals” and that the hours billed were “explained” and “commensurate with the scale of work.” He also noted that WilmerHale’s rates were broadly comparable to other advisers in the matter and that the increases were “largely inflation-based.”
So now the Biglaw bills are under the microscope with Judge Leonard’s assessment headed Wilmer’s way.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post WilmerHale’s $35M Bill Comes Under Fire appeared first on Above the Law.
