In a recent controversy that has sparked discussion among legal professionals, Gerard Cicero, a partner at Brown Rudnick, faced a significant pushback from Chief Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein regarding a proposed rate hike in a bankruptcy case. Cicero sought to increase his billing rate from $1,000 to $1,500 per hour, a 50 percent jump, which the judge found unacceptable (Above the Law).
Chief Judge Silverstein emphasized the improbability of a client accepting such a steep increase, stating, “There may be a reason, but a 50% increase in somebody’s rates is not something any client I ever had would have accepted.” The request was ultimately denied, though Brown Rudnick has indicated its intention to submit further documentation to justify the increase (Bloomberg Law).
It’s critical to note that while the total rate of $1,500 is not uncommon in high-stakes legal scenarios, the method of implementing such an increase in one go was what chiefly irked the judge. Silverstein suggested incremental adjustments might have been more palatable, stating, “If Cicero’s previous rate was ‘behind market,’ the firm couldn’t ‘catch it all up at one time.’
Interestingly, Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys working on the same case are billing even higher rates. An associate at S&C, for instance, charges $1,530 per hour, surpassing Cicero’s requested rate. This discrepancy highlights a significant aspect often overlooked: how an increase is proposed matters as much as, if not more than, the amount itself.
- Chief Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein’s comments underscore the weight of client perception and market alignment in billing practices.
- The incident underscores the delicate balance firms must maintain when adjusting rates to meet market standards without alienating clients.
The case serves as a pointed reminder to legal professionals that while competitive rates are essential, the strategy behind achieving these rates is equally critical.