In the world of class action litigation, the opaque nature of how attorney fees are divided among law firms often raises questions, especially when it involves substantial settlements. A recent lawsuit has lifted the veil on this issue, bringing to light a contentious battle between Scott + Scott and Robins Kaplan, two prominent law firms engaged in one of the largest private antitrust cases of our time.
Scott + Scott filed a lawsuit in Manhattan’s state court, seeking $5 million, which it claims was promised as part of a $5.6 billion antitrust settlement against Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. This settlement centers on accusations that these credit and debit card giants engaged in unlawful “swipe” fees that overcharged retailers and consumers for nearly two decades.
The dispute dates back to an agreement forged in 2015, wherein Scott + Scott agreed to pay Robins Kaplan $6 million from its share of a $195 million fee award linked to a previous class action against private equity firms. This earlier case involved allegations that these firms colluded to artificially lower the prices of corporate buyouts prior to the financial crisis. In return for this payment, Robins Kaplan was to compensate Scott + Scott from the Visa-MasterCard litigation proceeds to ensure the latter firm would receive $20 million from that case.
The legal tussle intensified when, last year, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the $5.6 billion settlement with Visa and MasterCard, which included a substantial fee award of $523.2 million for the plaintiffs’ attorneys, predominantly represented by Robins Kaplan, Berger Montague, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. According to Scott + Scott, Robins Geller informed them that their portion of the fees would be $15 million, but later reneged on the deal to cover the $5 million deficit, leaving Scott + Scott short of the promised $20 million.
The case underscores a broader issue in class action fee awards, which are public by virtue of judicial approval, yet the mechanisms behind their division—especially among firms that didn’t secure lead counsel roles—remain largely undisclosed. While some past cases have partially illuminated these negotiations, such as the $503 million fee division related to Syngenta’s genetically modified corn litigation, judges typically prefer to avoid intervening in these disputes.
Experts, including University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard, note that while fee-sharing agreements are common, they are often informal and may lack written documentation. This lack of formality can complicate matters, particularly when disputes arise. Another intriguing aspect of this situation is that Patrick Coughlin, a prominent antitrust attorney who co-led both the swipe fee litigation and the previous corporate buyout case, recently transitioned from Robins Kaplan to Scott + Scott.
Both Robins Kaplan and Scott + Scott are currently collaborating on antitrust litigation against RealPage, a property management software company accused of enabling excessive rental charges. The defendants in this case deny any wrongdoing.
In related legal fee news, DISH Network and its Sling TV service are in a separate fight to reinstate a previously awarded $3.9 million in attorney fees, which was recently overturned by an appeals court due to alleged judicial errors during the fee allocation process.
Read more: