LEGAL FEE AUDITS, INVESTIGATIONS AND STRATEGY

SOLVING INFLATED LEGAL BILLS

We help you reduce or recover On unwarranted legal bills

Chief Judge Endorses the LAA Legal Bill Auditing LAABAM™ Method
Chief Judge Eviscerates the Overcharging Law Firm
The Court Reduces Loeb and Loeb LLP’s Legal Bill by 25%

We Can Help:

Legal fee examination and report using the LAABAM™ method

Forensic item by item audit, review, and reorganization into legal billable matters, suplemented with a Lodestar anayslsis; the gold standard of fee evaluation. Bankruptcy code section 330 and United States Trustee compliant and Court endorsed.

Legal fee negotiation on your behalf armed with the LAABAM™ report

Expert Witnesses

Case Strategy and Management

Advise and help owners strategize and manage their case and legal effort.

Mediation

Stategic mediation and dispute resolution

SAVE 25%* ON YOUR LEGAL BILLS

Upload your bills for a free Confedential evaluation and quote

We help you reduce or recover inflated legal fees

Results May Vary*

Visit Us

©2022 lowerlegalbills.com

Chief Judge Endorses the LAA Legal Bill Auditing Method LAABAM™!

The honorable Carla Craig, the (now former) Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York had this to say during a hearing where the fee objector used a LAABAM report as the basis to contest a Loeb and Loeb LLP professional fee application of $432,068.00, and expenses of $6,502.71. [added comments below for clarity].

Page 35 of hearing transcript:

THE COURT:

22 Now, let me look back at the — again, I”m working

23 off of _________ [the one page summary from the forty nine page LAABAM report] breakdown in his objection  because

24 that is, I think, a more useful way for me to see this than the

25 way that it’s been presented [by Loeb and Loeb LLP]. And that’s — I think the

1 lumping by category of work [ie, dissecting and reorganizing the bill entries into distinct legal billable matters]is something that is in accordance

2 with the United States Trustee’s guidelines. That is the way

3 that this is supposed to be presented, at least in part. You

4 know what I mean, it’s supposed to have — that type of a

5 breakdown is supposed to be provided. So that’s what I’m

6 looking at. It wasn’t provided by the applicant, so I’m

7 looking at __________ [the objector’s LAABAM] breakdown.

8 MR. HAWKINS [Loeb]: We did break it down in the various

9 sections of the applications.

10 ___________ [OBJECTOR]: Not legal matters. [Loeb did] Not [break it down into] legal [Matters]

11 It’s [Loeb and Loeb’s bill and presentation are] meant to cloud and confuse.

Chief Judge Eviscerates the Overcharging Law Firm!

The Judge’s reliance on the LAABAM™ report facilitated her understanding of the scope of Loeb and Loeb LLP’s inflated legal bill which led her to say the following during the hearing

‘The amount …sought….[is] very high for five weeks of work.1  You have ….[an] obligation to make sure [not to waste the client’s money], [and you]…don’t have work [here that requires the skills for which you are billing]….$1,000/hr2…[it] is inappropriate.  I just can’t see how this is appropriate.  It’s just over the top.  I just don’t see it.3  I think its an excessive amount.4  The idea that you spent $425,000 in five weeks is grossly excessive.5 [What] research{?]….  What research is[?}…there’s no abstruse legal principals…here.6  These fees are in excess of what is reasonable for the amount of work …done.7  I just think this is too much….for a lot of reasons.8  You spent too much time on things you shouldn’t have.9  I don’t think they [creditors] got paid because of your wonderful work.11  I’m not going to let them [Loeb] charge as much as they are charging.12 That doesn’t mean that you can charge whatever you want.’10

________________________________________________________

       Transcript of Hearing:

  1. Page 23; line 8
  2. Page 23; line 21
  3. Page 24; line 13 
  4. Page 24: line 14
  5. Page 27; line 1
  6. Page 27; line 6 
  7. Page 28; line 9
  8. Page 29; line 29
  9. Page 29; line 30  
  10. Page 30; line 21
  11. Page 30; line 22
  12. Page 34; line 18

The Court Reduces Loeb and Loeb LLP’s Legal Bill by 25%!

The Court found that Loeb and Loeb LLP excessively billed it client and reduced Loeb’s  bill by $107,700 ($7,700 of which were recommendations by the UST).