Federal Judge Grants Attorney Fees in BAR/BRI Case but Slashes Amount

A federal judge in Los Angeles, ruling on an issue that had been remanded to his court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has granted attorney fees to two law firms that objected to the $49 million settlement in an antitrust class action against the publisher of the BAR/BRI bar examination review course.

However, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California, who originally had denied fees to the objectors, granted significantly less than the attorneys had requested. He also refused to grant fees to several pro se objectors.

The 2007 settlement came in a case filed on behalf of 300,000 class members who claimed to have overpaid, on average, about $1,000 for BAR/BRI's bar review course because its parent company, West Publishing Corp., conspired to monopolize the market in a deal with Kaplan Inc., which sells preparatory courses for the Law School Aptitude Test.

The class sought $300 million, triple the estimated antitrust damages.

Before the settlement was finalized, several objectors raised questions about the incentive awards, valued at $25,000 to $75,000, that five of the seven class representatives were to receive as part of the deal.

Real rejected the incentive awards but otherwise approved the settlement.. He also refused to grant attorney fees to the lawyers for the objectors.

In April, the 9th Circuit reversed Real's decision on the fees, concluding that the objectors' efforts in raising the incentive award issue deserved some relief of legal costs.

On July 13, Real granted $8,125 to John W. Davis of the Law Office of John W. Davis in San Diego, who represented eight objectors, and $16,250 to C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick & Nutley in Pasadena, Calif., who represented five objectors.

Davis had been seeking $42,655 in fees and $884 in costs; Nutley initially requested $108,000 in fees.

Both attorneys declined to comment on the judge's decision.

Real did not address the $12 million in attorney fees granted to the plaintiffs firm, McGuireWoods of Richmond, Va., as part of the settlement.

In its April order, the 9th Circuit directed Real to consider the influence the incentive awards might have on the granting of those fees. Because the incentive awards were tied to the settlement, the 9th Circuit concluded, counsel created a "disturbing appearance of impropriety."