Among the large number of law firms that contributed to the litigation, the lead firms, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason and Alioto Law Firm, netted $75 million and $49 million respectively.
The defendant companies became more agreeable to agreements of settlement after a criminal investigation into the matter by the U.S. Department of Justice gained strength.
However, even after the main class-action litigation was settled, differences developed in the allocation and distribution of attorney awards. Ultimately, in last August, the court appointed a special master to draw up reports and issue recommendations for allocation of attorneys fees.
However, the findings of the special master submitted as reports in November and December last year were challenged by several law firms. Co-lead counsel, Joseph Alioto of the Alioto Law Firm was among those who raised objections.
Alioto argued that he had an agreement with the other co-lead counsel in the case, Francis Scarpulla of Zelle Hofmann to divide fees equally between their respective teams. However, the special master found that Alioto failed to prove such an agreement, and that even had such an agreement existed, it would have been unenforceable in most situations. The special master also noted that according to federal law and California law, fee agreements between attorneys need to be “in writing and signed by clients” in order to be enforceable.
Alioto continues to object and has expressed that he might appeal the decision made on Friday.
The case is In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 07-md-01827.
