Attorney Fees Knocked Down in Dog Barking Case

, New York Law Journal

   |2 Comments

He called Colin Kaufman, who is co-chair of the firm's litigation department and handled the trial preparation work, an "excellent, experienced trial attorney."

He also said that Jeffrey Metz, an attorney at the firm who worked on the settlement, was an "excellent, experienced appellate attorney (whom this Court has known professionally for many years)."

Nonetheless, the judge found the $114,000 request excessive. "The latter phases of a dog-barking case that never went to trial should not be that expensive," he said.

"A case that had been extensively litigated for years by another firm, and that was essentially ready for trial when inherited, and that settled without a trial, should not cost a king's ransom," Manhattan Acting Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron wrote. "Furthermore, the factual and legal issues were not that complicated: the building had ear-witnesses to the barking, and the by-laws allowed the building to impose fees."

The judge said the co-op would have come out ahead financially if it had simply accepted the original $35,000, or dropped the case entirely, without retaining Bailey.

Engoron also made much of the firm's "Gets Results" marketing slogan. "If you hire the firm that 'Gets Results,' you expect hard-nosed attorneys with a practical approach, not gold-plated preparation for a trial that should not have been that complicated, never was imminent, and never occurred."

The judge said that both parties were at fault for the litigation's cost, "but defendant the more so."

The judge knocked the fees down to $60,000, including the $15,000 already paid.

Bailey said he was considering an appeal.

"[The judge] said that our hourly rate was fair," Bailey noted. "He praised all of our attorneys that were involved in the case."

What's being said

  • not available

    The problem with the decision/order is that it does not reflect that the client was hell bent upon prosecuting his claims against Andrew Stein and wanted no stone to be left unturned. And while the client did not want to go to trial while the appeal from the denial of summary judgment was pending, there was no stay in effect so that it was imperative to prepare responsibly to best represent the client’s interests. Parenthetically, the matter first went to arbitration where the firm was awarded the fees it sought.-Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.

  • not available

    Other than the article including prominent attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, how is this a news story?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202640176376

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.