ILNews

Judge in high-stakes suit praises lawyers

Greg Andrews
December 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

Indianapolis class-action attorney Irwin Levin just helped lead a legal team that is going to collect more than $6.7 million in fees in a high-profile Iowa lawsuit involving price fixing in the concrete industry.

That in itself is great news for Levin and his firm, Cohen & Malad. So perhaps it’s icing on the cake that the judge, in his Nov. 9 order approving the fees, lavished praise on all the attorneys in the case.

He said class counsel achieved “fabulous results with incredible efficiency” and that he had never been more proud of his profession in his 36-year legal career.

“This case has been to me what it was like when I stood before da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’ and Michelangelo’s David, observing the great masters’ works,” wrote Mark Bennett, U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of Iowa. “I was overcome with a rare and gargantuan sense of awe that will likely last a lifetime.”

Bennett isn’t some country judge who has never seen a big case before. Appointed in 1994 by President Clinton, he is a former chief judge for the district and is widely regarded as a candidate for a federal appeals court judgeship.

While serving on a special, three-judge panel in 2000, Bennett wrote a “brilliant and detailed” dissent in a criminal case that became the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court’s later reversal, Slate magazine wrote in a 2008 profile of standout judges.

Levin, managing partner of Cohen & Malad, said: “I’ve been fortunate to have many kind words directed at our efforts in the past. But this is obviously quite unique. It is especially gratifying coming from a judge with the stature of Judge Bennett.”

The judge on Nov. 1 approved an $18.5 million settlement to resolve the case brought by Iowa buyers of ready-mix concrete against five concrete companies and three executives who had pleaded guilty to price-fixing.

The topic of the case probably rings a bell. Levin waged a similar battle in Indiana after prosecutors brought price-fixing charges in the state in 2004. The last of seven defendants settled last year, bringing the total recovery to more than $60 million. The legal team – led by Levin and Stephen Susman of Susman Godfrey in Houston – received $18 million in fees.

Iowa is the only other state where prosecutors have brought similar concrete price-fixing charges. In that litigation, Levin – working closely with Cohen & Malad’s Scott Gilchrist – served as co-lead counsel with Gregory Hansel of Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios of Portland, Maine.

levin-irwin-mug.jpg Levin

Bennett praised attorneys for bringing the case to conclusion in a little more than a year, despite myriad “complexities in proving the scope of the price fixing conspiracies and damages to class members.”

He also noted that the settlement was so large that plaintiffs recovered all their losses, even after paying attorneys’ fees. And that’s based on the loss estimate provided by plaintiffs’ expert witness. The Justice Department had estimated the total volume of commerce affected by the price-fixing conspiracy was just $5.7 million.

Despite the favorable outcome for plaintiffs, Bennett said in his order that attorneys for the defendants – including Krieg DeVault in Indianapolis – did a bang-up job as well.

“These exceptionally knowledgeable and sophisticated defense antitrust counsel provided their clients – from rural northwest Iowa small businessmen to an international conglomerate – with invaluable and insightful guidance and representation, sparing their clients likely treble damages, years upon years of litigation stress, and millions of dollars in litigation costs,” Bennett wrote.

Things weren’t always looking so good for Cohen & Malad. Plaintiffs lost on a key motion early on, forcing attorneys to replead the case in a different way.

Given that early setback and the speedy resolution of the case, at first blush the attorneys’ request for more than $6 million in fees “might read more like a ubiquitous Nigerian email scam than the highly meritorious motion it has turned out to be,” Bennett wrote.

He added: “This case is a model for the nation that class actions can, indeed, work exactly as Congress and the federal courts intended – though they rarely do.”•

__________


Greg Andrews is the managing editor of the Indianapolis Business Journal, a sister publication of the Indiana Lawyer, and writes Behind the News. This column ran in the Dec. 12 issue of IBJ.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT