EPAH got a David Lat shoutout today
| the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 03/02/26 | | ~~(> ' ' )> | 03/02/26 | | JJC (retired) | 03/02/26 | | cypher | 03/02/26 | | JJC (retired) | 03/02/26 | | cypher | 03/02/26 | | cypher | 03/02/26 | | the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) | 03/02/26 | | JJC (retired) | 03/02/26 | | cowgod | 03/02/26 | | cypher | 03/02/26 | | Kenneth Play | 03/02/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 2nd, 2026 8:10 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.)
Gaw [EPAH] is a five-lawyer litigation boutique in San Francisco, co-founded by Randolph Gaw and [EPAH]—both Stanford Law alums who worked in Biglaw, at firms such as Morrison & Foerster, O’Melveny & Myers, and Wilson Sonsini. [EPAH] is an expert in the Robinson-Patman Act, the federal antitrust law that prohibits manufacturers from engaging in price discrimination—charging different prices to different customers for the same product or service. In 2024, Gaw [EPAH] prevailed at trial against the manufacturer of Clear Eyes Redness Relief Eye Drops, after a jury found that the company had discriminated against ten wholesale purchasers by providing discounts to larger buyers (e.g., Costco).
Based on its prevailing billing rates and favorable result in the case, Gaw [EPAH] and its clients requested around $7.7 million in attorneys’ fees, reflecting hourly rates ranging from $1,000 to $1,300—not cheap, but well below the $3,000 or $4,000 rates charged by some Biglaw partners. Judge Michael Fitzgerald (C.D. Cal.) awarded only $3.1 million, however, after noting that the fee request relied heavily on cases involving awards to Biglaw firms—and concluding that it was “unreasonable to award big law rates to a four-person firm representing mom-and-pop warehouses.”
In an opinion covered by Reuters, Bloomberg Law, and Above the Law, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of Gaw [EPAH]’s clients and vacated the fee award, remanding the case for recalculation of the fee award. Here’s what Judge Salvador Mendoza wrote (citations omitted):
A firm’s small size should not automatically result in its attorneys receiving a reduced hourly rate. A firm’s size does not directly bear on the factors we must consider when awarding fees—the lawyers’ skill, experience, and reputation. Indeed, some of the most skillful, experienced, and reputable attorneys strike out on their own or with several colleagues. History reminds us that brilliance at the bar is not measured by the number of associates a lawyer commands; Abraham Lincoln, Clarence Darrow, Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Gerry Spence are just a few luminaries who perfected their skills and made enduring marks on our profession without joining the ranks of large law firms.
Preach, Judge Mendoza. To quote the title of E. F. Schumacher’s landmark work, Small Is Beautiful. (And I’d argue that this is true in fields other than law; I’m a one-person operation here at Original Jurisdiction, but I like to think that my work is just as good as the output of much larger media organizations.)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840626&forum_id=2"#49709526) |
|
|