Court Opinions

Court Opinions Concerning Our Audits

Courts across the country have relied on our audits when evaluating attorney’s fee requests. In a number of matters, courts have reduced requested fees by as much as 75 percent after reviewing our work. These results were achieved under a no-risk structure for our clients, who engaged Jim Schratz and Associates without committing to pay for the audit unless they believed it provided value.

The examples below highlight how judges and special masters have described our methodology and how our findings have influenced fee awards.

• In Florida Asset Financing Corp. v. Borton, Petrini & Conron, United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division (Santa Ana), Case No. 8:96cv01144 AHS-MLG, Jim Schratz and Associates was retained to audit a fee request of approximately $600,000. Based on the audit report, the court awarded $80,000.
• In Adam v. Norton, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C-98-2094 CW, the plaintiff sought a total of $1,726,312.92 in attorney’s fees. The Special Master cited Mr. Schratz’s audit report and recommended a total award of $434,581.95, less than 25 percent of the amount originally requested. The Special Master stated:
  
  “I believe Mr. Schratz’ expert testimony meets the standard. Schratz’s testimony is relevant, in that Schratz has provided a useful breakdown of the time spent by Plaintiff’s attorneys, and reliable, in that Schratz has accurately summarized the time and expenses claimed by Plaintiffs’ attorneys.”
• In North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C-01-4823 EMC, Jim Schratz and Associates was retained to audit the plaintiff’s request for $2,046,759.16 in fees and costs. In awarding plaintiffs $453,810.75 in fees (approximately 22 percent of the request), Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen cited Mr. Schratz’s audit with approval on several billing issues. The Order dated December 16, 2005, states in part:
  
  “Based on the information provided in the declaration, Mr. Schratz has demonstrated that he is qualified to opine about fee awards and that his methodology in evaluating the billing records of NP’s attorneys in this case is reasonable and sufficiently reliable. For example, Mr. Schratz’s approach to categorizing the nature of the work of the attorneys is reasonable and sufficiently reliable as is, overall, his approach to unblocking the block-billed time entries.”
• In Frieders v. City of Glendale, No. BC263271, the Los Angeles County Superior Court adopted the audit findings of Jim Schratz and Associates. Plaintiffs requested approximately $4.1 million in fees; the court reduced the award to $1.1 million.
• In McMurray v. City of Burbank, No. BC 247304, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, the plaintiff sought approximately $1.1 million in legal fees. Following a full-scale audit by Jim Schratz and Associates, the court reduced the fees by 58 percent.
• In Conrad v. Perry, (2004) U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., No. C-00-2236 PJH, C-00-2142 PJH (not for citation), the United States Department of Justice retained Jim Schratz and Associates to audit a fee request totaling $719,135. Based on our audit, the court reduced the fees to $227,772.50, a reduction of 68 percent.
• In Rios v. Rowland, No. 330211, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Jim Schratz and Associates was retained to audit a fee request of approximately $1.5 million. The court upheld the audit results and reduced the fee request to approximately $227,000.
• In CVB Corporation v. John Cavallucci, No. 156505, Superior Court of California, County of Marin, Jim Schratz and Associates was retained to audit a fee request of approximately $2 million. The audit identified multiple billing abuses, and the court disallowed approximately 50 percent of the requested fees.
• In Aquilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, No. 948597, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Jim Schratz and Associates was retained to audit a fee request of approximately $1.3 million. The court followed the audit findings and reduced the request by approximately 50 percent, to $650,000.
• In McCauley v. BFC Direct Mailing, No. 5711562, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, the plaintiff sought approximately $1.1 million in attorney’s fees. The defendant, Howard Jarvis Tax Reform Movement, retained Jim Schratz and Associates to conduct a legal fee audit. The court followed the audit findings and awarded approximately $525,000 of the $1 million requested.
• In Rose v. Lancaster School District, No. BC 303843, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Jim Schratz and Associates was retained to conduct an audit. The court adopted the methodology, analysis, and recommendations contained in the audit, and reduced plaintiff’s request for fees by 58 percent, from $498,000 to $209,000.