What is a Reasonable Hourly Rate for Awarding Attorney’s Fees in Miami? Answer: It’s Significantly Less Than New York

In a recent federal case in which rapper and producer Timbaland (aka Timothy Mosley) won summary judgment on a copyright infringement case, Magistrate Judge Torres made the interesting comment that the fees that would be awarded to Timbaland would not be “‘New York’ billing rates.”  Kernal Records Oy v. Mosley, Case No. 09-21597, 23 (S.D. Fla. July 16, 2013).  When calculating fees, parties are awarded reasonable hourly rates in the prevailing market and, as was the holding in a previous opinion, the reasonable rates in Miami are not equivalent to those in New York.

So what is a reasonable hourly fee in Miami?  Although it varies from case to case, it is clearly less than the rate in New York.  In Hermosilla v. Coca-Cola Co., 10-21418-CIV, 2011 WL 9364952 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2011), the court reduced the hourly rate of partners at Holland & Knight, LLP to a “blended” $425 an hour, and associates to $225 an hour, for what it called a basic intellectual property and contract case.  The court held:

We find as an initial matter that many of the hourly rates requested by the H & K attorneys are excessive for the South Florida legal community for the types of legal services that were required in this case. See ACLU of Ga., 168 F.3d at 437–38; Norman, 835 F.2d at 1299. “Even if a party chooses to employ counsel of unusual skill and experience, the court awards only the fee necessary to secure reasonably competent counsel.”

Id. at *9.  The partner fees were reduced from as high as $680 an hour for a partner and $385 an hour for an associate.  The other partners’ and associates’ billing rates weren’t too far behind the leaders.  The Court in Hermosilla noted the prestigious credentials of the H&K attorneys, but pointed out that even in the most expensive legal jurisdiction, New York, the courts could not approve such rates.

Which brings us back to our most recent case.  Judge Torres merely warned the attorneys for  “Timbo the King” (as he’s been referred to by Jay-Z), that Miami is not New York when it comes to billing.  No fees have been awarded yet, but for those of you that are curious, we’ll keep you up to date when Timbaland’s attorneys submit their version of what is reasonable.  For those that stumbled upon this post for insight regarding the reasonable hourly rate in South Florida and Miami, here are some cases to get you started:

Tiara Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh USA, Inc., 697 F.Supp.2d 1349 (S.D.Fla.2010) (reducing hourly rates charged by premium New York law firm by 19 to 25 percent); Global Horizons Inc. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 2009 WL 855970 (S.D.Fla. Mar.31, 2009) (awarding discounted hourly rates for premium South Florida law firm of $300–475 per hour (partners); $185–310 (associates); and $160 (paralegals)); Red Bull GMBH v. Spacefuel Corp., No. 06–20948–Civ–Jordan/Torres (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2007) (awarding reduced blended hourly rates for premium Washington D.C. and South Florida law firm of $400 for partners and $250 for associates).

(H/T to SouthFloridaLawyers.blogspot.com)

Florida Supreme Court: When an Insurance Policy is Ambiguous, It Is Interpreted in Favor of Coverage; No Extrinsic Evidence Allowed

Just last week, in Washington Nat. Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, SC12-323, 2013 WL 3333059 (Fla. July 3, 2013), the Florida Supreme Court held that an insurance policy was ambiguous where it provided for annual increasing benefits, but did not specify which benefits increased.   The specifics of the ambiguity in this case are not  important, what is important is the rule.  The Court held that where there are ambiguities in policies, the policy should be interpreted liberally against the drafter and in favor of coverage, and extrinsic evidence should not be used to clarify the ambiguity.  The Eleventh Circuit was uncertain in regard to Florida law based on Excelsior Insurance Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1979), which indicated that extrinsic evidence may be allowed.  The Court held:

The Eleventh Circuit in the instant case did not rely on its reasoning in the Gradinger decision and, further, now expresses doubt that Florida law is settled on whether an ambiguous insurance policy should be strictly construed against the insurer or whether extrinsic evidence must first be allowed in an attempt to clarify any potential ambiguity…. We now make clear that nothing in Excelsior expressly holds that extrinsic evidence must be considered in determining if an ambiguity exists. Further, nothing in Excelsior constitutes an implicit declaration that resort must be made to consideration of extrinsic evidence before an insurance policy is found to be ambiguous and construed against the insurer.

The take away here is that when an insurance policy can be interpreted multiple ways, it should be interpreted liberally and in favor of the party that did not draft it. See also Gradinger v. Washington National Insurance Co., 250 F. App’x 271 (11th Cir. 2007).  Here is a good sound bite from the case that I found entertaining:

As we noted in Hartnett v. Southern Insurance Co., 181 So. 2d 524, 528 (Fla. 1965), where an insurance policy is “drawn in such a manner that it requires the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer to comprehend the terms embodied in it, the courts should and will construe them liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer to protect the buying public who rely upon the companies and agencies in such transactions.” We recognize that “[u]nless restricted by statute or public policy, insurance companies have the same right as individuals to limit their liability and impose conditions upon their obligations.” Canal Ins. Co. v. Giesenschlag, 454 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). However, the insurance company has a duty to do so clearly and unambiguously.

Read the entire decision here.