Cases

In re Flint Water Cases

Docket number: 5:16-cv-10444 (E.D. Mich.) Appellate case number: 22-1185 (6th Cir.) The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed objections on behalf of a group of Flint residents challenging plaintiffs’ attorneys’ excessive $202.76 million fee request from a $641 million settlement resolving claims against several defendants in connection with their alleged negligence and misconduct in the Flint water crisis. HLLI represents the Hall objectors—Flint residents and parents Raymond Hall, Robert Hempel, and Ashley…

<em>In re Flint Water Cases</em>

St. John v. Jones, et al.

The settlement and fee request would provide only 30% of the funds to class members, 25% to attorneys, 5% to the settlement administrator and about 40% or $16 million to third party organizations, called cy pres. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the diversion of class funds.

<em>St. John v. Jones, et al.</em>
Image credit: Mike Mozart

Yeatman v. Hyland

Class member William Yeatman objected to a settlement that provides no direct benefit to class members but instead pays $1.75 million as “cy pres” to fund the creation of a new non-profit.

<em>Yeatman v. Hyland</em>

Greenberg v. Lehocky

HLLI successfully filed a civil rights suit against the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to block implementation of a rule that would limit speech by Pennsylvania-licensed attorneys. HLLI unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court concerning the revised rule that replaces the one already found to be unconstitutional.

<em>Greenberg v. Lehocky</em>
Ingram Publishing / Alamy Stock Photo

Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

CCAF's objector contended that only 25% of the cash fund should be awarded to the attorneys until the actual redemption rate of coupons is known. Prior to the fairness hearing, class counsel agreed to defer fees pending coupon redemption, thus resolving Faber's primary objection.

<em>Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.</em>
Photo credit: Nick Collins

In re Google LLC Street View Electronic Communications Litigation

Much like the Google referrer case that CCAF argued before the Supreme Court, plaintiffs' attorneys have achieved a settlement worth a fraction of pennies-on-the-dollar, then argued that the modest recovery excuses them from actually having to benefit class members. Class member David Lowery objects.

<em>In re Google LLC Street View Electronic Communications Litigation</em>
Photo credit: Padaguan/Wikipedia

McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represents an objector to the settlement of McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC, which provides only coupons to class members, including those who no longer subscribe to Massage Envy, while earmarking $3.3 million for attorneys' fees in cash.

<em>McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC</em>
Photo credit: Jour Sarah/Wikipedia
Search this website Type then hit enter to search