State ex rel. Butterworth v. Exxon Corp.

Good Law
109 F.3d 602·1997 WL 129039
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 24, 1997Nos. 93-56675, 93-56676, 94-56695California6,043 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

These two appeals raise a number of questions regarding attorneys’ fees in two common fund cases.

FACTS

Dunne began practicing law in 1970 as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Louisiana. He worked there on some antitrust eases for the United States Department of Justice in 1971. Then he transferred to the Department of Justice antitrust división in Washington, D.C., and worked there for a year and a half. In 1974, Dunne became chief counsel of the antitrust division of the Attorney General’s Office in the State of Oregon. He left that position in 1979, and commenced a law practice from an address in California.

In 1978, before any association with Dunne, Florida sued seventeen oil companies for antitrust violations in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Six years later, in 1979, Florida retained Dunne, then in private practice in California, to assist in this ongoing litigation. As amended, the contract provided for a 15% contingent fee, with $40 per hour guaranteed whether anything was recovered or not. The hourly rate was to be credited against any contingent fee which might ultimately be paid. If a judgment was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.