Home Expert Bio Trial Results Clients Speaking Publishing Experience
  1. In the largest securities class action attorney fee award in U.S. history in the Enron case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston cited Ken Moscaret's expert opinions in issuing its record-setting $700 million fee award. The District Court identified Mr. Moscaret as one of the "nationally prominent experts on fee awards" who was testifying in the Enron case and found Mr. Moscaret to be "highly qualified to testify about attorneys' fees and market rates." In its 209-page fee opinion, the District Court made favorable findings, consistent with Kenneth Moscaret's opinions, on the reasonableness of lead plaintiff's counsel's hourly rates, use of contract attorneys, case staffing, and efficient litigation management practices. Ken Moscaret testified on behalf of lead plaintiff's counsel in Enron. For a reference, please contact Patrick Coughlin, Esq., managing partner, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins in San Diego. 2008 ruling.

  2. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in downtown Los Angeles ruled after a multi-week trial that over $9 million in legal fees/costs billed by a high-profile, major law firm in Century City were reasonably incurred in large, complex litigation. Ken Moscaret submitted expert testimony at trial in support of the reasonableness and efficiency of the law firm's fees. For a reference, please contact Scott Gizer, Esq., trial counsel at Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro in Los Angeles. 2010 ruling. Click here to read News Blog story. Click here to read the court's final written decision (Mr. Moscaret's expert testimony is cited on numbered page 18 of the decision). Mr. Moscaret used the same expert methodology successfully at trial in this case as outlined in his new e-book Legal Fee Reasonableness At Trial In California (1st edition 2014). Purchase e-book here.

  3. A three-person arbitration panel in Los Angeles (which included a retired California Supreme Court justice) unanimously agreed with Ken Moscaret's opinions in this seven-figure insurance coverage fee dispute that $550 per hour (as a 2006 rate) for a litigation partner at a major law firm in Century City was reasonable. The insurance carrier argued at trial that $185 per hour was a more appropriate rate. Kenneth Moscaret testified on behalf of the corporate policyholder in the case. For a reference, please contact David Schack, Esq., policyholder coverage litigation partner, K&L Gates (formerly Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis) in Los Angeles. 2007 ruling.

    In a securities class action in New York federal court, the Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, Mr. Moscaret testified on behalf of lead plaintiff's counsel. He opined, consistent with established case precedent in other securities class actions, that contract attorneys working for lead plaintiff's counsel should be compensated at higher, prevailing market hourly rates commensurate with their years of practice experience. Those contract attorneys, many of whom had big-firm work experience and past securities litigation experience, performed substantive document review and legal analysis in connection with upcoming depositions and a possible trial in the case. A class objector argued, to the contrary, that contract attorneys should receive rates of $50 per hour or less.

    Although Mr. Moscaret cited other federal court fee decisions that have allowed billing contract attorneys at prevailing market rates, the District Court disagreed with Mr. Moscaret's recommended rates here, awarding a $200 per hour blended rate for contract attorney time instead. 2013 ruling.

    NOTE: Mr. Moscaret was not asked to offer opinions on any other fee reasonableness issues in this case except for contract attorney rates. He therefore did not apply his usual expert methodology for evaluating the reasonableness of multimillion-dollar legal fees in large, complex cases.

    PRACTITIONER'S TIP: wherever possible, contract attorneys hired to perform document review should also be assigned tasks more typically performed by full-time law firm associates, and those tasks should be clearly described in detail for the court in the contract attorneys' time entries.

  5. A different three-person arbitration panel in Los Angeles was persuaded by Ken Moscaret's expert testimony in another matter that a seven-figure fee request submitted by a prevailing-party fee applicant was excessive and unreasonable with respect to hourly rates and hours billed. Kenneth Moscaret testified on behalf of the fee-paying corporate defendant. For a reference, please contact Dana Levitt, Esq., litigation partner, McDermott Will & Emery in Los Angeles. 2006 ruling.

  6. Ken Moscaret testified to a three-person arbitration panel in San Francisco in a seven-figure fee dispute that insurance carrier billing guidelines that were not delivered to defense counsel in a timely manner were not enforceable by the insurance carrier, and further, that there were flaws in an outside fee auditor's methodology for reviewing the defense billings. Kenneth Moscaret testified on behalf of the law firm which was defending asbestos lawsuits. For a reference, please contact John Brydon, Esq., litigation partner, Brydon Hugo & Parker in San Francisco. 2005 ruling.

  7. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in downtown Los Angeles agreed with Ken Moscaret's expert opinions in a statutory fee-shifting case and found that lower billing rates typical of small-to-midsize law firms were more reasonable for a fee award than big-firm rates, where the prevailing-party fee applicant was a small law firm in Los Angeles. Kenneth Moscaret testified on behalf of defendant City of Los Angeles. Copy of court's ruling available upon request. 2003 ruling.

  8. In an unpublished appellate decision Gonzalez v. Roadway Express, Inc., Kenneth Moscaret was retained by defendant's counsel, Baker & Hostetler, and qualified to testify on the reasonableness of plaintiff's fee request in a statutory fee-shifting case in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The appellate court ultimately both agreed and disagreed with Ken Moscaret's expert opinions. On the one hand, the court agreed with Kenneth Moscaret's position (as did plaintiff's own expert) that small-firm fee applicants should not be awarded big-firm rates in a fee-shifting case. This was the first time to our knowledge that a California appellate court had made such a judicial finding in any opinion, whether published or unpublished. Ken Moscaret was seeking that result.

    NOTE: the court, however, disagreed with Kenneth Moscaret's additional view that, in determining an appropriate hourly rate to award in this case, the relevant pool of comparable attorneys for a small-firm fee applicant should be limited to other small law firms in Los Angeles. Ken Moscaret called this a "market layer" approach based on law firm size. The court pointed out that Kenneth Moscaret's approach conflicted with established case precedent, meaning that the broad legal market in Los Angeles was the relevant point of comparison, not just any single segment or layer of the market. Surprisingly, after reaching that conclusion, the court considered the facts of the case in light of Ken Moscaret's approach. 2005 ruling.

*Typically, Kenneth Moscaret's fee cases have ended up settling prior to reaching trial. The above are some representative adjudicated results.