PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Lemus v. H&R Block

| No Comments


There is some good and bad in this N.D. California district court decision by Judge Susan Illston approving a settlement of a claims-made class action over employee classifications of tax-season temporary tax preparers.

On the good side, the court based the attorneys' fees on the amount the class actually received, rather than on the hypothetical amount the class could potentially receive but would never try to. Thus, instead of one third of a hypothetical $35 million, class counsel received about 20% of an actual $19.8 million.

On the bad side, the court failed to apply Bluetooth correctly, considering solely the question of "collusion," and not the issue of self-dealing. H&R Block agreed not to oppose an attorney award of $11,833,666 (one third of $35 million plus $166,000), and was willing to put up a minimum of $23.3 million to settle the case. But there was a kicker providing a reversion of approximately half of denied attorneys' fees to the defendant. The clear-sailing and kicker clauses (together with the unreasonable fee request of 49% of class benefit) are per se evidence of self-dealing; class counsel, Marlin & Saltzman and Diversity Law Group, effectively cost their clients $3.5 million through their insistence on these clauses in the hopes of maximizing their own fee. This is not only a reason to reject a settlement out of hand, it should be a reason to find legal malpractice for breach of fiduciary duty. In the absence of public-interest objectors, however, class counsel looks to get away with it.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.