ILNews

Small law firm sees faith in class-action suit pay off

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge appears likely to approve the largest class-action settlement ever to come out of a local court, and DeLaney & DeLaney, a small Indianapolis law firm that helped press the case, is poised to profit handsomely.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in June granted preliminary approval to a deal under which WellPoint Inc. would pay $90 million to settle a lawsuit charging it undercompensated policyholders when it converted into a public company in 2001. The deal — submitted three days before a trial was set to begin — is up for final approval at an Oct. 25 hearing.

The plaintiffs have asked the judge to earmark one-third of the settlement, or $30 million, for attorney’s fees, though it isn’t clear how that would be divvied up among the six law firms representing plaintiffs.

It’s been quite an odyssey for all the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The case began seven years ago, and DeLaney & DeLaney jumped on board in 2008, when the case was transferred from Ohio.

The firm, which has just five attorneys, poured more than 2,400 hours into the case, working alongside some national heavyweights in class-action litigation.

“Every person who has worked here during the life of this case has worked on this case,” said Kathleen DeLaney, DeLaney & DeLaney’s managing partner. “It is that big a case. At certain times, we added personnel to work on this case. We had lots of weekends and late nights working on this case.”

Because it was a contingency-fee case, all that work would have been for naught had Indianapolis-based WellPoint prevailed at trial. But DeLaney said her firm thoroughly analyzed the risks and opportunities before jumping aboard.

At issue in the lawsuit were the terms of the 2001 conversion of WellPoint — then known as Anthem Inc. — from a policyholder-owned company to a publicly traded one. Plaintiffs had been planning to argue at trial that the insurer paid 700,000 policyholders in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut $227 million to $448 million less than it should have.

While the $90 million settlement is just 40 percent of the low end of that range, WellPoint had contended it owed nothing. And even if plaintiffs had prevailed at trial, they faced the risk of having that verdict overturned on appeal after years of additional legal squabbling.

“These large risks strongly motivated class counsel to perform work of the highest quality and in appropriate quantity, in order to fulfill our fiduciary commitment to our clients and to lessen the chances of a disastrous loss,” plaintiffs’ attorneys said in their motion asking Pratt to approve the one-third contingency fee.

DeLaney believes the deal has strong support from class members. She noted that there were just three objections filed to the fee request, despite the hundreds of thousands of class members who could have done so.

“The bottom line is, this was the biggest case of my career so far,” said DeLaney, who graduated from law school in 1995 and entered private practice in 1997, after clerking two years for then-U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton. “It was a very exciting case to be involved with. I am proud of the results we got for our class members.”

DeLaney started DeLaney & DeLaney in 2001 with her mother, Ann DeLaney, a former chairwoman of the Indiana Democratic Party. Her father, state Rep. Ed DeLaney, joined them after retiring as a partner at Barnes & Thornburg in 2003.

DeLaney & DeLaney, the only Indiana law firm representing the plaintiffs, was the primary point of contact for class members, “and, as the case progressed, had key roles in case strategy decisions,” according to a filing by attorneys for other firms representing plaintiffs. The filing noted that both Kathleen and Ed DeLaney were named to the team that was going to try the case before a jury.

Kathleen DeLaney isn’t saying what percentage of the spoils will go to her firm. The firm put in 6 percent of the nearly 41,000 hours that plaintiffs’ attorneys devoted to the case.

Had all the firms billed at their attorneys’ regular hourly rates, fees would have totaled $20 million, with more than $840,000 going to DeLaney & DeLaney. The Indianapolis firm bills at up to $450 an hour, a pittance compared with the more than $700 an hour billed by some out-of-state attorneys who represented plaintiffs.•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT