With that kind of markup, Tigar said the use of contract lawyers could be considered a profit-seeking scheme. Heimann argued that the work and the overhead costs for staff and contract employees are the same in regard to training, supervision and providing workspaces. Tigar said the law firm wouldn’t contract out staff if it weren’t more profitable.
Tigar also set out to address another objection mentioned in Frank’s opposition over a 5% fee allocated to 12 law firms who brought similar cases in Delaware courts. “The gravy train is so heavy that co-lead counsel has agreed to pay law firms that brought other cases even where they provided no common benefit, who represent plaintiffs who lack any colorable claims,” Frank wrote.
CCAF filed an objection on July 11, 2019 arguing that because this is a megafund settlement, any fee award should be significantly less than the 25% benchmark. Plaintiffs' counsel also drastically overstate their lodestar with millions of dollars of work by contract attorneys billed at excessive rates.
