The highest paid lawyer that I have ever met bills $1600/hr. Ted Olson is a famous former Solicitor General. He argued Bush v. Gore and the recent Proposition 8 case. He now works for a major national law firm in their DC office.
Kind of funny to think when he looks at a clock for 2 seconds, that's $1 right there. But he's highly experienced and a very good appellate litigator. You wouldn't hire him unless it was high stakes litigation and the legal fees were little compared to what you might lose in a judgment against you.
Technically, it's not. Since he would most likely, as most corporate legal does, bill in 6 minute increments, it's $160.
That being said, 15 years ago I worked in high end corporate law, and our partners charged $750/hr+. I'm hardly surprised that $1,100/hr is being charged now, especially when it includes overheads.
Two high-profile lawyers and three others for 40 billable hours per week comes to a about $350/hr on average. Assuming the the two top lawyers are billed at at around $500/hr, it's probably less than 40 billable hours/week, and the rest of the team is fairly priced.
The complaint lays out what's being paid and dvanduzer pointed out below the $1100/hr figure is just for Bromwhich, his staff is an additional $1025/hr. I don't think anyone would find that to be reasonable.
I find it perfectly reasonable. Apple broke the law, and is now required to pay for a monitor to make sure they comply. For a business as big as Apple, you don't select a garden-variety lawyer, you pick the best you can--and the best are expensive. The top bankruptcy lawyer in the country has offices down the street from mine--his hourly rate starts at $1200. One of the top immigration lawyers in the country also has offices nearby, three of their partners have hourly billing rates in excess of $1000/hour.
This is, in practice, no different from Google, et. al., paying through the nose to acquire top tech/programming talent.
You find it perfectly reasonable because 1) it's not you and 2) you have no idea if it is or not.
I find it totally unreasonable. I think the Judge needs to be investigated for deciding the case before trial and changing the scope of the investigation.
" I think the Judge needs to be investigated for deciding the case "
The judge did no such thing. This has been gone over before. Judges commonly give opinions on the current strength of a case when asked by parties. This is to encourage parties to settle. IE they will often say "you may have a tough time proving X given the evidence you've submitted so far". This is an opinion on the strength of a case as it exists at the current. Not a decision about the merits.
The judge had mountains of evidence and motions that had been gone through at that point. Heck, I think there were even motions for summary judgement pending (IE for a verdict before trial).
What happened is perfectly normal, and not "deciding a case".
You're right again. If you are the same guy who has the "Learn code the hard way", I honestly think you should
run for political office. Get your name out there. You
say, and think the way a lot of us feel, but are afraid
to speak up.
There is a lot of ambiguity in Apple's complaint. There are 5 people on the team and two billing rates. No mention of whether the staff are JDs or paralegals. Apple also complains about a 15% overhead rate when the investigative teams has to travel, live in hotels, outsource billing and possibly desk space, etc. Does the overhead rate cover all that? The billing rate? Or is the overhead rate added to billed-through expenses. Apple doesn't say, nor do they call out these unknowns.
They say in their complaint that 1100 + 15% is higher than any lawyer has ever been paid in any Apple matter.
From the complaint: As Apple explained to Mr. Bromwich, of all known past Apple matters, “not a single partner had an effective billing rate as high as or higher than those that [Mr. Bromwich has] proposed.” ... . And Mr. Bromwich’s rates in this matter dramatically exceed what he has quoted in the past.
