The
Ninth
Circuit
just
made
clear,
size
isn’t
everything.
And
pretending
otherwise
is
just
compensating
for
something
else
entirely.
In
a
recent
decision,
the
Ninth
Circuit
ruled
—
unanimously
—
that
attorney’s
fees
awarded
to
successful
plaintiffs
cannot
be
discounted
simply
because
the
winning
law
firm
is
small.
The
case
involved
four-lawyer
boutique
Gaw
Poe,
which
secured
a
2024
jury
verdict
finding
that
Prestige
Consumer
Healthcare
illegally
gave
Costco
better
pricing
on
eyedrops
than
it
offered
to
wholesalers.
(You
know,
just
a
casual
little
antitrust
violation
over
your
irritated
eyeballs.)
After
winning
at
trial,
Gaw
Poe
asked
for
more
than
$7.6
million
in
attorney’s
fees.
But
U.S.
District
Judge
Michael
Fitzgerald
slashed
that
request
down
to
about
$3.1
million.
Why?
Because
the
firm
had
previously
been
awarded
lower
rates
in
a
different
case,
and
because
the
judge
worried
he
would
create
“a
new
benchmark”
for
future
fee
petitions.
Ah
yes,
the
classic
judicial
fear:
What
if
people
start
expecting
excellent
lawyers
to
be
paid
like
excellent
lawyers?
On
appeal,
the
Ninth
Circuit
was
unimpressed.
Writing
for
the
court,
Judge
Salvador
Mendoza
Jr.
made
clear
that
courts
should
not
treat
firm
size
as
a
proxy
for
skill,
experience,
or
reputation.
Mendoza
went
further,
emphasizing
that
first-rate
lawyers
who
win
are
entitled
to
first-rate
fees,
full
stop.
“First-rate
attorneys
who
prevail
in
litigation
are
entitled
to
receive
fees
commensurate
with
their
skill,
experience,
and
reputation,
even
if
their
clients
are
mom-and-pop
businesses
that
don’t
have
Fortune
500
budgets
to
hire
big
law
firms,”
he
wrote.
Founder
Randolph
Gaw
summed
it
up
more
bluntly
to
Reuters.
“What
matters
most
is
the
results
we
achieved
—
not
the
size
of
their
law
practice.”
And
honestly?
That’s
the
whole
thing
right
there.Gaw
also
noted
the
particularly
rich
irony
that
tends
to
surface
after
boutique
firms
beat
Biglaw
at
trial,
“When
we
win,
our
Big
Law
opponents
often
suggest
that
our
fees
should
be
lower
than
what
they
were
paid
to
lose
the
case
to
us.”So
no,
courts
don’t
need
to
worry
about
creating
a
“new
benchmark”
where
excellent
lawyers
are
compensated
appropriately,
regardless
of
how
many
names
are
on
the
door.And
just
like
in
other
areas
of
life,
obsessing
over
size
often
misses
the
point
entirely.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].