IN: Law firm’s suit over fees for work complying with GJ subpoena to client leads to reduced fees

The law firm sued over its attorneys fees in complying with federal grand jury subpoenas for a client after a search warrant directed to the client. The trial court made findings of fact finding the reasonable fee one-third of what the firm sought. The trial court’s findings of a reasonable fee are affirmed because the record supports them. Bopp Law Firm v. Schock for Congress, 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 287 (July 6, 2020)*:

[21] Next, we must consider whether the trial court erred by concluding that a reasonable fee for the document review and production performed by the Law Firm was $30,000 (as opposed to the over $90,000 it demanded).

[22] At trial, SFC offered the testimony of Ray Biederman, an electronic document production expert. He testified that his company could have responded to the subpoenas within two weeks for less than $30,000. Biederman also testified that Bopp’s lack of familiarity with technology increased the cost of the review and the production of the privilege log, which did not conform with basic legal guidelines. The trial court explicitly found Biederman’s testimony “to be informative and convincing.” Appealed Order p. 5.

[23] The Law Firm called a rebuttal witness, Jeffrey Gallant, who is an attorney with the Law Firm. Gallant admitted, however, that document production and review does not constitute a large percentage of his current legal practice. As a result, the trial court largely discounted his testimony because of his “minimal experience” with document review and production. Id.

[24] The trial court’s conclusion that $30,000 is a reasonable fee for the document review and production falls squarely within the evidence presented at trial. The Law Firm may wish that the trial court had believed its witness over SFC’s, but the fact that the trial court credited Biederman over Gallant does not constitute an error. The Law Firm’s arguments to the contrary are merely requests to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we may not and will not do. We find no error with respect to the trial court’s conclusion that the reasonable value of the Law Firm’s legal services performed in this matter is $30,000.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.