in re m&t bank corporation erisa litigation · 4 x larson v. allina heath system, no....

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re M&T Bank Corporation ERISA Litigation

Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-375-FPG-JJM Consolidated Action

DECLARATION OF KAI RICHTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

SERVICE AWARDS I, Kai Richter, hereby submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval

of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Service Awards.

Professional Overview

1. I am a partner at Nichols Kaster, PLLP (“Nichols Kaster”), and I am one of the

attorneys appointed by the Court to represent the Settlement Class1 in the above-captioned action.

See ECF No. 168.

2. I am currently licensed in good standing to practice law in the State of Minnesota,

and also have been admitted to practice in several federal district courts and appellate courts across

the country. A list of jurisdictions and courts in which I am admitted is set forth below:

Supreme Court of the United States 1st Circuit Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 6th Circuit Court of Appeals 8th Circuit Court of Appeals 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

U.S.D.C. for the District of Minnesota U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of Michigan

U.S.D.C. Western District of New York Minnesota Supreme Court

1 Capitalized terms in this Declaration have the meaning assigned in the Settlement Agreement. See ECF No. 159-1.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-FPG-JJM Document 176 Filed 06/24/20 of 14

2

I am in good standing in every jurisdiction in which I have been admitted to practice.

3. I have been actively engaged in the practice of law since 1999, and have substantial

class action experience and other complex litigation experience, as outlined in my prior

Declaration in support of preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class Action Settlement (ECF No.

159).

4. Since joining Nichols Kaster in April 2010, my practice has focused exclusively on

class action cases. I have been appointed class counsel for litigation or settlement purposes in over

twenty class cases. In connection with those cases, I have personally negotiated class action

settlements providing for more than $300 million in available relief to class members nationwide.

5. The principal types of cases that I have handled at the firm are consumer class

actions and ERISA class actions.

6. As a former leader of our firm’s Consumer Class Action Team, I spearheaded class

action litigation against several major financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of

America, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Citibank, GMAC Mortgage, RBS Citizens, and MidFirst Bank.

For example, I successfully argued contested class certification motions in Hofstetter v. Chase

Home Finance, LLC, 2011 WL 1225900 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011) and Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank,

N.A., 2014 WL 2734953 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014), successfully argued before the First Circuit

Court of Appeals in Lass v. Bank of America, N.A., 695 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012), and successfully

argued and/or briefed dispositive motions in numerous other consumer class cases, including

Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5945732 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2013); Leghorn v. Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A., 950 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013); Casey v. Citibank, N.A., 915 F. Supp.

2d 255 (N.D.N.Y. 2013); Berger v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 1164497 (D. Mass. Mar. 21,

2013); Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 3929805 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2012); Ulbrich v.


3

GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 2012 WL 3516499 (Aug. 15, 2012); Walls v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A., 2012 WL 3096660 (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2012); Skansgaard v. Bank of America, N.A., 896 F.

Supp. 2d 944 (W.D. Wash. 2011); and Wulf v. Bank of America, N.A., 798 F. Supp. 2d 586 (E.D.

Pa. June 27, 2011).

7. I am currently co-leading our firm’s ERISA Class Action Team. In addition to the

present case, the firm’s lawyers (including myself) have been appointed class counsel for litigation

and/or settlement purposes in fifteen other ERISA cases, as set forth below:

Brotherston v. Putnam Investments, LLC, 1:15-cv-13825 (D. Mass.);

Andrus v. NY Life Ins. Co., 1:16-cv-05698 (S.D.N.Y.);

Main v. American Airlines, Inc., 3:16-cv-01033 (N.D. Tex.);

Bowers v. BB&T Corp., 1:15-cv-00732 (M.D.N.C.);

Stevens v. SEI Invs. Co., No. 2:18-cv-04205 (E.D. Pa.);

Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P., 8:15-cv-01614

(C.D. Cal.);

Johnson v. Fujitsu Tech. & Bus. of America, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-03698 (N.D.

Cal.);

Wildman v. American Century Servs., LLC, No. 4:16-cv-00737 (W.D. Mo.);

Clark v. Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc., No. 9:18-cv-81101 (S.D. Fla.);

Moreno v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., No. 1:15-cv-09936

(S.D.N.Y.);

Moitoso v. FMR LLC, No. 1:18-cv-12122 (D. Mass.);

Velazquez v. Mass. Financial Services Co., 1:17-cv-11249 (D. Mass.);

Beach v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:17-cv-00563 (S.D.N.Y);


4

Larson v. Allina Heath System, No. 17-cv-03835 (D. Minn.); and

Mass v. The Regents of the University of California, No. RG17-879223

(Alameda County Super. Ct.).

8. Our firm took the Putnam and American Century cases to trial in April 2017 and

September 2018, respectively.2 We received final court approval of settlements in New York Life,

American Airlines, Fujitsu, Allianz, BB&T, Oasis, Deutsche Bank, SEI, Massachusetts Financial

Services, and Allina, and also recently reached a settlement-in-principal with FMR LLC a/k/a

Fidelity Investments (approval motion forthcoming). We won contested class certification motions

in our cases against BB&T, Allianz, American Century, Putnam, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan

Chase, and the University of California. We also defeated motions to dismiss in several of these

cases in whole or in part (Putnam, American Airlines, BB&T, Allianz, Fujitsu, American Century,

Massachusetts Financial Services, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and University of

California), as well as in Morin v. Essentia Health, 2017 WL 4083133 (Sept. 14, 2017), report

and recommendation affirmed, 2017 WL 4876281 (D. Minn. Oct. 27, 2017), Reetz v. Lowe’s

Companies, Inc., 2019 WL 4233616 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2019), Nelsen v. Principal Global

Investors Trust Company, 362 F. Supp. 3d 627 (S.D. Iowa 2019), Karpik v. Huntington Bancshares

Inc., 2019 WL 7482134 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2019), and Intravaia v. National Rural Electric

Cooperative Association, 2020 WL 58276 (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2020).

9. The firm is viewed as a leader in ERISA 401(k) cases. According to a recent

Bloomberg BNA article, “Nichols Kaster has been the driving force” behind recent 401(k) self-

dealing litigation. See Jacklyn Wille, Deutsche Bank Can’t Shake 401(k) Fee Lawsuit, Bloomberg

2 Although we did not prevail before the trial court in Putnam, we obtained a favorable ruling on appeal in Brotherston v. Putnam Invs., LLC, 907 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2018).


5

BNA (Oct. 17, 2016). Attorneys from Nichols Kaster have been interviewed by National Public

Radio (for the program “All Things Considered”), the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Financial

Times, Investment News, Bankrate.com, and several trade publications in connection with their

ERISA work. I also have spoken by invitation at several national conferences and seminars on

ERISA litigation, including (1) a webinar on “Fee Litigation” sponsored by the American Bar

Association (November 12, 2019); (2) an employee benefits program sponsored by the American

Law Institute (October 24, 2019); (3) a Professional Liability Directors & Officers conference on

a panel regarding “Plan Fee Litigation” (February 6, 2019); (4) an American Bankers Association

Insurance Risk Management Conference on a panel concerning excessive fee ERISA class actions

(February 5, 2019); (5) an American Law Institute webcast on Excessive Fee Litigation

(November 28, 2018); (6) the American Law Institute’s tax-exempt and government plans

education series (September 24, 2018), where I co-presented on “The Current State of Fee

Litigation and Its Implications”; (7) the American Conference Institute’s National Forum on

ERISA Litigation (on both March 1, 2017 and November 2, 2017), where I was a member of the

“Fiduciary Investment Litigation Update” panel; and (8) the Retirement Advisor Council’s annual

meeting (May 22, 2018), where I was a member of a panel on “The Moving Litigation Frontier”.

10. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, I served as the Manager of the Complex Litigation

Division of the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General. During my tenure there (from February

2008 to March 2010), I supervised and handled a large number of complex matters. For example,

in June and September of 2009, I co-chaired a three-week trial involving claims for fraudulent

sales of annuities and legal plans to over 1,200 Minnesota senior citizens, which ultimately resulted

in a favorable judgment from the trial court. In addition, I handled a significant consumer


6

enforcement action against Sprint Nextel related to wrongfully-imposed contracts and termination

fees, which resulted in a comprehensive settlement in October of 2009.

11. I also had significant prior class action experience in private practice, including two

multi-week class action trials: a statewide wage and hour class action against Wal-Mart Stores in

Minnesota (tried in 2007) and a landmark class action against the University of Michigan Law

School. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

12. I received my law degree from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1999,

and my B.A. from Dartmouth College in 1995.

Law Firm Overview

13. Nichols Kaster has been engaged in the practice of law for over 30 years, and is

devoted to representing the interests of both consumers and employees. The firm has offices in

Minneapolis and San Francisco, and currently employs 36 attorneys and a sizeable staff of

paralegals, legal assistants, class action clerks, and information technology professionals. A copy

of Nichols Kaster’s law firm resume (which includes attorney biographies) is attached hereto as

Exhibit 1.

14. Nichols Kaster has extensive class action and collective action experience. The firm

has been appointed lead counsel or co-counsel on hundreds of class and collective actions, and has

recovered over $750 million for its clients.

15. Nichols Kaster was named one of the top 50 elite trial firms by National Law

Journal in September 2014, and also has been ranked as a Best Law Firm by U.S. News and World

Report. In addition, Nichols Kaster has received praise from numerous courts for its work.

16. The firm’s lawyers have litigated dozens of cases through trial, and have managed

discovery in cases involving millions of pages of documents. The firm is also well regarded for its


7

appellate work, and recently has been involved in two successful appeals before the United States

Supreme Court, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 135 S.Ct. 1199 (2015) and Kasten v. Saint-

Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2010).

Work Performed by Class Counsel

17. As a result of our firm’s experience litigating ERISA cases and other class action

cases, we were able to efficiently and effectively handle this action.

18. Notwithstanding the efficient manner in which the matter was handled, Nichols

Kaster has dedicated a significant amount of time to this case. Among other things, we: (1)

conducted a thorough investigation of the class-wide claims; (2) drafted a detailed Complaint

(ECF No. 1) and subsequently drafted a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25), Consolidated

Complaint (ECF No. 35), and First Amended Consolidated Complaint (ECF No. 135); (3)

responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint (ECF No. 52); (4)

appeared before the Court for an initial case management conference; (5) moved for class

certification (see ECF No. 93); (6) drafted a comprehensive set of discovery requests; (7)

repeatedly met and conferred with Defendants during the course of discovery; (8) engaged in letter

briefing related to discovery; (9) reviewed over 250,000 pages of documents and extensive class

data produced by Defendants; (10) produced over 7,500 pages of documents; (11) responded to

Interrogatories; (12) served subpoenas on three non-parties (Gordon Feinblatt LLC, Hodgson Russ

LLP and T. Rowe Price) and reviewed more than 3,800 pages of documents produced by those

non-parties; (13) engaged in motion practice related to Gordon Feinblatt’s privilege designations;

(14) deposed five fact witnesses; (15) defended five plaintiff depositions;3 (16) consulted with

three experts; (17) successfully moved to amend the Consolidated Complaint based on information

3 Our co-counsel defended Ms. Allen’s deposition.


8

gathered during the course of discovery (see ECF No. 132); (18) prepared a lengthy mediation

statement and reply brief in advance of mediation; (19) attended a full day mediation session before

retired federal district court judge Layn Phillips in California; (20) continued further negotiations

through Judge Phillips until reaching a settlement-in-principle; (21) drafted the Settlement

Agreement and exhibits thereto, including the Settlement Notices, Former Participant Claim Form,

and proposed preliminary and final approval orders; (22) prepared Plaintiffs’ Preliminary

Approval Motion papers; (23) consulted with the Class Representatives throughout the course of

the case; (24) solicited bids from three potential settlement administrators and selected Analytics

Consulting LLC (Analytics”) after reviewing the various bids that were submitted; (25) reviewed

the final drafts of the Settlement Notices prepared by Analytics, and ensured that they were timely

mailed by Analytics; (26) worked with Analytics to create a settlement website and telephone line

for Class Members who wished to obtain additional information about the Settlement; (27)

communicated with Class Members who contacted our office; and (28) prepared the present

motion and supporting papers. This work is further detailed in my Declaration in Support of

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 159).

19. The work summarized above required the efforts of numerous attorneys and

professional staff at Nichols Kaster. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of

Nichols Kaster’s timekeeper summary in this action. As reflected by this summary, Nichols Kaster

attorneys have expended 3,393.50 hours pursuing this matter through the date of this Declaration,

and Nichols Kaster professional staff (including paralegals, law clerks, legal assistants, class action

clerks, and information technology professionals) have expended an additional 536.9 hours, for a

total of 3,930.40 hours by Nichols Kaster personnel. Our co-counsel invested an additional 756.35

hours (as reported in their declarations), for a grand total of 4,686.75 hours invested by all Class


9

Counsel. We would be happy to provide detailed billing records if the Court deems them necessary

or helpful.

20. Nichols Kaster’s standard billing rates for ERISA actions such as this range from

$625 to $875 per hour for attorneys with more than 10 years of experience, $425 to $575 per

hour for attorneys with 10 years or less experience, and $250 per hour for paralegals and clerks.

21. In setting these rates, our firm is cognizant of the rates approved in other ERISA

class action cases (as set forth in our accompanying Memorandum of Law), as well as the rates

charged by the defense bar in this field. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 are excerpts of a report (the

“Valeo Report”) showing that among ERISA practice groups within the top 200 law firms, the

2017 hourly rate range for senior partners was $320-$1,363 (with an average of $835), for partners

was $296-1,202 (with and average of $751), and for senior associates was $238-$938 (with an

average of $580).

22. All of the work of Class Counsel has been undertaken on a contingent basis. To

date, Class Counsel have not been compensated for any of this work. Based on the hourly rates

and work performed, the total lodestar for our firm amounts to $2,208,942.50, and the total lodestar

for all counsel amounts to $2,569,298 (see Declarations of Joseph Meltzer and Melanie Wolk).

23. In my professional opinion, and based on my personal knowledge of the work that

was performed and the requirements of this case and similar cases, the time expended on this action

by Class Counsel was reasonable and necessary.

24. After the date of this Declaration, we expect to perform additional work on behalf

of the Settlement Class, including: (1) researching, drafting, and filing Plaintiffs’ motion for final

approval of the Settlement; (2) communicating with the Independent Fiduciary engaged by

Defendants as part of the independent review of the proposed release on behalf of the Plan (as


10

called for by Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2003-39 and Article 3 of the Settlement

Agreement); (3) preparing for and attending the Fairness Hearing; (4) if final approval is granted,

supervising Analytics and the Escrow Agent (Alerus) to ensure proper and efficient distribution of

payments to the Class Members; (5) responding to questions from Class Members; and (6) taking

other actions necessary to support the Settlement until the conclusion of the Settlement Period.

Based on my experience supporting and supervising similar settlements, I estimate that Class

Counsel will expend at least an additional 50 to 150 hours of professional time after the date of

this Declaration.

Class Counsel’s Costs and Expenses

25. In connection with the action, Nichols Kaster also has advanced a significant

amount of expenses.

26. Because our firm handled this action on a contingent basis, we have not yet received

reimbursement for any of these expenses.

27. As of the date of this Declaration, Nichols Kaster has incurred $160,839.28 in

litigation-related expenses in connection with this matter. These expenses are broken down below:

Category Cost Expert fees $ 56,658.75 Travel Expenses $ 31,405.53 Mediation $ 31,892.00 Depositions $ 21,835.46 Financial Data Charges $ 12,064.88 Postage, Shipping, Copies $ 888.47 Westlaw/PACER $ 3,682.93 Filing fees $ 1,236.00 Process/Courier Service $ 1,080.25 Public records $ 95.01 TOTAL $ 160,839.28


11

In addition, our co-counsel have incurred $9,128.95 in litigation expenses, for a total of

$169,968.23 in litigation expenses.

28. These expenses do not include expenses of settlement administration (totaling

$91,322), which are broken out separately below. See infra at ¶¶ 32, 34, 35. In the event that the

Court would like further detail or documentation concerning these expenses, we would be happy

to provide it.

29. In my professional opinion, and based on my experience prosecuting this action

and overseeing the conduct of the litigation, these expenses were reasonable and necessarily

incurred in connection with the action.

30. In addition to these expenses, it is anticipated Nichols Kaster will incur additional

expenses in connection with this case going forward, including certain incidental expenses that

will be incurred in connection with appearing for the final approval hearing (meals, ground

transportation, etc.). We do not intend to seek reimbursement of those additional expenses.

Settlement Administration Expenses

Analytics

31. Nichols Kaster solicited bids from several settlement administration firms in

connection with this action. After reviewing the various bids, we selected Analytics Consulting,

LLC (“Analytics”) because Analytics has extensive experience handling class action settlements,

including ERISA settlements, and submitted the least expensive bid. Analytics’ firm resume is

attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

32. Based on the bid submitted by Analytics, it will cost $73,822 to administer the

settlement in this action. This is reasonable based on my experience handling similar cases and in

light of the bids that our firm received.


12

33. Analytics has diligently carried out its duties as Settlement Administrator by,

among other things, (1) preparing and mailing the Settlement Notices; (2) searching for valid

addresses for any Settlement Class Members whose Notices were returned as undeliverable; (3)

establishing a telephone support line for Class Members; (4) creating and maintaining the

settlement website; and (5) communicating regularly with the Parties regarding the status of

settlement administration. Analytics also is also in the process of reviewing the Claim Forms

submitted by Former Participants, and upon final approval of the Settlement, Analytics will

facilitate delivery of settlement payments to Class Members as provided by the Settlement.

Alerus

34. Class Counsel selected Alerus to perform the duties of the Escrow Agent under the

Settlement Agreement. Alerus has agreed to perform those duties for a fee of $2,500. Alerus

successfully performed a similar role with respect to the ERISA settlements overseen by our firm

in the New York Life, American Airlines, Fujitsu, Allianz, Oasis, Deutsche Bank, SEI, and

Massachusetts Financial Services cases referenced above (see supra at ¶¶ 7-8). Alerus has

performed its role competently in these cases and the present case, and I believe its fee is

reasonable in light of the services provided and the size of the Settlement Fund.

Independent Fiduciary

35. Additional administrative expenses will be incurred relating to the review of the

proposed release on behalf of the Plan by the independent fiduciary appointed pursuant to PTE

2003-39 and Article III of the Settlement. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants are

responsible for arranging this review by the Independent Fiduciary, and the expense is an

Administrative Expense that may be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. We understand that

the Defendants engaged Fiduciary Counselors Inc. to perform the role of the Independent

Fiduciary, and the fee for Fiduciary Counselors Inc.’s services in this matter will be $15,000.


13

Assistance of the Class Representatives

36. It has been my honor to represent the Class Representatives in this matter.4

37. Throughout the course of this action, the named Plaintiffs have been mindful of

their responsibilities as Class Representatives, and have actively participated in the action. Among

other things, the Class Representatives (1) reviewed the operative complaints bearing their names;

(2) provided documents and information prior to suit and during discovery; (3) reviewed their

answers to interrogatories; (4) appeared for their depositions; (5) made themselves available by

phone for the mediation; (6) communicated with our firm throughout the course of the action; and

(7) discussed the Settlement with counsel and reviewed the Settlement Agreement.

38. Based on the time and assistance that the named Plaintiffs have provided as Class

Representatives, and their initiative in pursing this action, I believe that the requested class

representative service awards are reasonable and appropriate. As noted in our motion papers, the

amount that the Class Representatives are seeking ($10,000) is consistent with other ERISA cases.

No Objections

39. The Settlement Notices that were approved by the Court disclosed the terms of the

Settlement and also contained a “Statement of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Administrative

Expenses, and Class Representatives’ Compensation Sought in the Class Action.” To my

knowledge, none of the Settlement Class Members have objected to the Settlement terms or the

proposed fees, expenses, or service awards as of the date of this motion.

4 In connection with the representation, the Class Representatives agreed to a one-third contingency fee, and to reimbursement of expenses in the event that the action was successfully resolved.


14

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Dated: June 24, 2020 s/Kai Richter Kai Richter


EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:16-cv-00375-FPG-JJM Document 176-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 38

|

Firm Overview...................................................................................................................................... 2

Accolades .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Judicial Recognition ............................................................................................................................ 4

Notable Litigation Results .................................................................................................................. 11

Nichols Kaster Attorneys ................................................................................................................... 26


For more than forty-five years, Nichols Kaster has enjoyed a sterling reputation as a top employment and consumer plaintiffs’ litigation firm. We have represented hundreds of thousands of employees and consumers nationwide on a variety of legal issues arising under both state and federal laws.

The Firm’s National Wage and Hour team represents employees in class and collective actions seeking to recover unpaid wages in circumstances where employers misclassify workers or otherwise fail to compensate them for all hours worked, pursuant to minimum wage and overtime rates, or as required by contract. The Firm also represents groups of employees seeking to recover unpaid commissions and unlawfully pooled tips.

Nichols Kaster represents workers and consumers who have endured discrimination and who have had their civil rights violated on either an individual or class-wide basis. The Firm’s employment group is also dedicated to assisting individual employees in Minnesota and surrounding states with a variety of legal needs, including addressing discrimination; harassment; retaliation; accommodation and leave issues; contract, severance, and non-compete disputes; as well as defending against licensure complaints.

The Firm also assists employees and retirement plan participants in protecting their 401(k) investments and other benefits. Nichols Kaster challenges breaches of fiduciary duty relating to

excessive fees, underperforming funds, imprudently managed accounts, and failure to properly pay benefits.

Nichols Kaster is dedicated to protecting consumer rights through its National Consumer Class Action team. Over the years, the Firm has represented consumers with a variety of violations, primarily on a class-wide basis. The Firm led the way in forced-placed flood and hazard litigation and with claims under the Fair Credit and Reporting Act.

Nichols Kaster also represents whistleblowers and relators who have “blown the whistle” on illegal activity. These cases involve the

Employee Representation

Wage & Hour Violations 401(k) and Benefit Breaches Qui Tam/False Claims Wage Fixing Equal Pay Violations HarassmentDiscriminationRetaliationMedical leave Failure to Accommodate Federal Railway Safety Act Violations Breach of Contract SeveranceNon-Compete Agreements Defamation

Consumer Representation

Forced-Placed Insurance Credit Reporting Improper Background Checks Student Loans Predatory Lending Interest Overcharges and Misapplication of Loan Payments Billing Practices Deceptive Practices Debt Collection Violations


reporting of possible government fraud, mishandling of toxic substances, violations of tax or securities laws, discrimination in education, failure to provide access to public facilities, and more. Nichols Kaster represents individuals who have brought claims on behalf of the government against entities who have defrauded the government under the False Claims Act (also known as “qui tam” lawsuits).

No matter the type of claim, Nichols Kaster helps everyday people seek redress against big corporations.

The NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS AND ALM have named Nichols Kaster, PLLP the Employment Rights Law Firm of The Year. According to an ALM spokesperson,

[T]he lawyers and law firms selected this year from more than 250 submissions have demonstrated repeated success in cutting-edge work on behalf of plaintiffs over the last 15 months. They possess a solid track record of client wins over the past three to five years. The 2020 Elite Trial Lawyers finalists delivered results for clients across a wide range of cases with some of the most difficult sets of facts, very challenging circumstances, often filing uphill battles for years. Many were up against some of the most prominent defense firms on the globe… The winners stood out based on the uniqueness and importance of their cases as well as the results delivered for their clients.

The U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT has continued to name Nichols Kaster as a and honored individual lawyers at the Firm as , consecutively since 2012. LAW360 has listed Nichols Kaster as a top plaintiffs’ employment law firm, and MINNESOTA LAWYER has declared it one of Minnesota’s top 100 firms. In 2019, nine of Nichols Kaster’s attorneys were named as part of the 500 leading plaintiff employment lawyers on ’s list of the nation’s best employment lawyers. In 2019, nine of Nichols Kaster’s attorneys were named and eight

by SUPER LAWYERS MAGAZINE. Steve Smith and Matthew Frank were announced as the 2017 Minnesota Lawyers of the Year. On Martindale Hubbell, the firm has a 5 out of 5 peer rating.

Together the National Law Journal and LAW.COM named Nichols Kaster a top 50 firm for “that are doing the most creative and substantial work on the plaintiffs side.” Introducing

America’s Elite Trial Lawyers, THE NAT’L LAW J. (Sept. 8, 2014).

In 2009, Nichols Kaster was ranked as one of the top ten busiest FLSA firms in the country by Litigation Almanac 360, which conducted a study of over 500,000 federal cases and received input from more than 200 law firms. Nichols Kaster was the only plaintiffs’ firm in the top ten.


Nichols Kaster provides employees and consumers with significant results, including substantial settlements, trial victories, and ground-breaking determinations on important legal questions. The Firm’s attorneys fight hard for their clients, vigorously litigating complex actions against top national defense firms. Courts have recognized Nichols Kaster’s successes and extensive experience and have appointed the Firm as lead or co-lead counsel on hundreds of . Below are just a few examples of this recognition.

Class Counsel displayed skill and determination. It is unsurprising that only a few firms might invest the considerable resources to ERISA class actions such as this, which require considerable resources and hold uncertain potential for recovery.

The Honorable Judge Catherine C. Eagles Sims v. BB&T Corp., No. 1:15-cv-841 (M.D.N.C., May 5, 2019)

[C]lass counsel achieved a strong result through skillful litigation and settlementnegotiation. After filing a detailed complaint and amended complaint, working through a substantial discovery process, litigating a motion to dismiss, and undergoing mediation and settlement discussions, class counsel obtained a settlement of $14 million and a mandatory request for proposal that will help ensure quality management of class members’ 401(k) funds down the road. Regarding quality of representation, the litigation and settlement appear by all measures to be the work of skillful and experiencedattorneys with significant expertise in the ERISA context.

The Honorable Judge Nathanael M. Cousins Johnson v. Fujitsu Tech. & Bus. of Am., Inc., No. 5:16-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2018).

The high quality of Nichols Kaster’s representation strongly supports approval of the requested fees. The Court has previously commended counsel for their excellentlawyering. The point is worth reiterating here. Nichols Kaster was energetic, effective, and creative throughout this long litigation. The Court found Nichols Kaster’s briefs and arguments first-rate. And the documents and deposition transcripts which the Court reviewed in the course of resolving motions revealed the firm’s far-sighted and strategic approach to discovery . . . Further, unlike in many class actions, plaintiffs’ counsel did not build their case by piggybacking on regulatory investigation or settlement . . . The


lawyers at Nichols Kaster can genuinely claim to have been the authors of their clients’success.

The Honorable Judge Paul A. Engelmayer Hart v. RCI Hospitali Holdings, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 3043, 2015 WL 5577713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015)

I want to commend all of you for the excellent work that you did in conjunction with the special master and the court’s technical advisor . . . I’m satisfied that this settlement is fair and reasonable given all the risk and expense of further litigation . . . .

Honorable Judge Kathryn Vratil Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 08-cv-2063 (D. Kan. Dec. 20, 2018)

[T]he attorneys at Nichols Kaster, PLLP are qualified, experienced, and competent, as evidenced by their background in litigating class-action cases involving FCRA violations. . . . . As noted above, Plaintiffs’ attorneys are experienced and skilled consumerclass action litigators who achieved a favorable result for the Settlement Classes.

The Honorable Chief Judge Deborah Chasanow Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665 (D. Md. 2013)

[T]his case’s early resolution can partly be attributed to counsel’s experience representingthousands of employees in wage and hour cases for thirty years, particularly within the oil and gas industry.

The Honorable Judge Dale Drozd McCulloch v. Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling Fluids, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00157 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2017)

Plaintiffs retained counsel with significant experience in prosecuting force-placed insurance cases, and other courts in this district have appointed them class counsel in force-placed insurance cases . . . Counsel have worked vigorously to identify and investigate the claims in this case, and, as this litigation has revealed, understand the applicable law and have represented their clients vigorously and effectively.

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. C 12-02506, 2014 WL 2734953 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014)


Thank you for all of your good work here. I know that it was really an extraordinarilycomplex case, and so well done.

The Honorable Judge Kathryn Vratil Harlow v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 08-2222 (D. Kan. Dec. 10, 2018)

[Nichols Kaster has] considerable experience in litigating wage and hour class and collective actions.

The award . . . follows efficient effort on the part of Class Counsel to achieve a sizeable recovery for the Class Members.

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez Allen v. All Temporaries, Inc., No. 16:cv-04409 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2018)

[T]he quality of representation, as evidenced by the substantial recovery and the qualifications of the attorneys, is high. As then District Judge Gerard E. Lynch recognized, Nichols Kaster is “a reputable plaintiff-side employment litigation boutique with a nationwide practice and special expertise prosecuting FLSA cases.”

The Honorable Judge Sidney H. SteinFebus v. Guardian 1st Funding Grp., LLC, 870 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

[T]his court finds that counsel possess more than sufficient experience to represent Plaintiffs fairly and adequately in reaching a fair and equitable settlement in this FLSA collective action . . . The parties are represented by competent and reputable counsel.

The Honorable Judge Tony N. Leung Mayfield-Dillard v. Direct Home Health Care, No. 1:16-cv-3489 (D. Minn., Dec. 18, 2017)

I think it was just some very efficient and good work on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorney that brought you to the point [of settlement].”

The Honorable Judge Josephine L. Staton


Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgm’t of Am., L.P., No. 8:15-cv-01614 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2018)

Counsel’s experience in vigorously litigating class/collective wage and hour actions, plus their experience with this industry were essential in obtaining this favorable and efficient result.

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Jonathon E. Hawley Woods v. Club Cabaret, Inc., 1:15-cv-01213, 2017 WL 4054523 (C.D. IL, May, 17, 2017)

The settlement was the result of arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel. Class Counsel is well known by this Court for their expertise in wage and hour litigation.

The Honorable Judge Michael J. Davis Burch v. Qwest Commc’ns Intl., No. 06-03523 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2012)

I want to say that both sides here have performed at an admirable level. And I wish that the lawyers of all cases would perform at your level. I say this to both of you, because you have you have been of assistance to the Court.

The Honorable Judge William Alsup Hofstetter v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 10-01313 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011) (transcript)

The Court finds that counsel is competent and capable of exercising all responsibilities as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

The Honorable Judge Richard H. Kyle Bible v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 12-CV-1236 (D. Minn. Jan. 7, 2014)

Over the past two years, Class Counsel has been active in all stages of litigation and has particularly benefitted Plaintiffs through capable handling of motion practice. For


example, Plaintiffs obtained summary judgment on a key issue involving the Morillion doctrine and defeated summary judgment on Defendants’ de minimis defense.

The Honorable Judge Virginia A. Phillips Cervantez v. Celestica Corp., No. 07-729, 2010 WL 11465133, *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010)

[T]he combined experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel as well as the fact that employment law, particularly the representation of employees, forms a large part of both the firm and counsel’s practice persuades this Court that the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and its attorneys Steven Andrew Smith and Anna P. Prakash will more than adequately protect the interests of the Class Members.

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung Fearn v. Blazin’ Beier Ranch, Inc., No. 11-743 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2012)

Plaintiffs have shown good cause under Rule 16(b) because Plaintiffs’ new counsel has shown the necessary diligence. Plaintiffs brought on Nichols Kaster, an experienced employment law firm of high repute as lead counsel in May 2012. Since that time, Plaintiffs have made a concerted effort to comply with this Court’s orders and deadlines.

The Honorable Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung Alvarez v. Diversified Main. Sys., Inc., No. 11-3106 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2012)

Plaintiff’s counsel are qualified, experienced attorneys that are fully capable of conducting this class action litigation . . . they are highly qualified, knowledgeableattorneys that are willing to invest the resources necessary to fully prosecute this case.

The Honorable Judge Gary Larson Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, No. 27-CV-10-1926 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 2010)

Plaintiffs’ Counsel are qualified attorneys with extensive experience in class action and wage and hour litigation and are hereby appointed as Class Counsel.

The Honorable Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.: Alvarez v. Diversified Main. Sys., Inc., No. 11-3106 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2013) (appointing class counsel and preliminarily certifying the class for settlement purposes).


However, the difficulty of the legal issues involved [and] the skill and experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel in FLSA cases . . . make an enhancement of the lodestar amount appropriate in this case.

The Honorable Judge Thomas D. Schroeder Latham v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. 1:12-cv-00007, 2014 WL 464236 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 14, 2014)

The Court must consider the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the actions, counsels' experience in handling class actions and other complex litigation and claims of the type asserted in the present action, counsels' knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1)(C). After reviewing the record, the Court is satisfied that the firms of Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP satisfy these criteria and will adequately represent the interests of the class as counsel.

The Honorable Judge Kathryn Vratil Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 254 F.R.D. 662, 677 (D. Kan. 2008)

The Arbitrator also notes that the briefs submitted by Claimant’s counsel and the performance at the hearing by Claimant’s counsel were of a very high quality.

Arbitrator Joel Grossman, Esq. Green v. CashCall, Inc., JAMS Arbitration No. 1200047225 (JAMS Aug. 22, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ counsel are adequate legal representatives for the class. They have done work identifying and investigating potential claims, have handled class actions in the past, know the applicable law, and have the resources necessary to represent the class. The class will be fairly and adequately represented.

The Honorable Judge Susan M. Robiner Spar v. Cedar Towing & Auction, Inc., No. 27-CV-411-24993 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Oct. 16, 2012)


[Defendant] doesn’t question whether Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel, and it’s obvious that they are. Plaintiffs’ are represented by a nationallaw firm, Nichols Kaster, that specializes in employment and class action law.

The Honorable Judge Larry Alan Burns Norris-Wilson v. Delta-T Grp., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 596 (S.D. Cal. 2010)


| Settlement Results

In Velazquez v. Massachusetts Financial Services Co., No. 1:17-cv-11249 (D. Mass.), the court granted final approval of the parties’ million settlement, resolving plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants under the employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

In Bowers v. BB&T Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00732 (M.D.N.C. May 6, 2019), the court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement in a case where plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.

In Moreno v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., 1:15-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 2019), the court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement in a case where plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.

In Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 08-cv-2063 (D. Kan. Dec. 20, 2018), the court granted final approval of a commissions settlement for retail store sales employees totaling

In Clark v. Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc., No. 9:18-cv-81101 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2018), the court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement in a case where plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.

In Harlow v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 08-2222 (D. Kan. Dec. 10, 2018), the court granted final approval of a commissions settlement of for business channel sales employees.

In Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am., L.P., 8:15-cv-01614 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2018), the court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement in a case where plaintiffs allege the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.

In Johnson v. Fujitsu Technology Business of America, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018), the court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement, and approved a class of current and former participants in the Fujitsu Group Defined Contribution and 401(k) Plan

In Vongkhamchanh v. All Temporaries Midwest, Inc., 17:cv-00976 (D. Minn. Apr. 27, 2018), the court approved a settlement for health care workers who would receive over

, explaining that the Firm’s “considerable experience litigating wage and hour class and collective actions, and informed opinions of the fairness of the settlement” provided support for approval of the hybrid state and federal action.


In Main v. American Airlines, Inc., 4:16-cv-00473 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2018), the court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement for a class of current and former participants in the American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan.

In Allen v. All Temporaries, Inc., No. 16:cv-04409 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2018), the court granted final approval of a Rule 23 class action and FLSA collective action for settlement of home health workers’ overtime claims. The court noted that “Class Members will recover over

after the deduction for attorneys’ fees, costs, and a class-representative service payment.”

In Mayfield-Dillard v. Direct Home Health Care., No. 1:16-cv-3489 (D. Minn, Dec. 18, 2017) the court approved the parties’ joint motion for settlement approval finding that the settlement was a

to the collective as the eligible individuals who accept the settlement will receive all their alleged overtime wage loss. The court found that “counsel possess more than sufficient experience to represent Plaintiffs fairly and adequately in reaching a fair and equitable settlement in this FLSA collective action” and that “[t]he parties are represented by competent and reputable counsel.”

In McCulloch v. Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling Fluids, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00157 (E.D. CA, Nov. 22, 2017), the court approved the settlement finding that was fair and reasonable and reflected a settlement payoff of of the estimated potential value of the class members’ claims. The judge commended Nichols Kaster stating, “[T]his case’s early resolution can partly be attributed to counsel’s experience representing thousands of employees in wage and hour cases for thirty years, particularly within the oil and gas industry.”

In Andrus v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1:16-cv-05698 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2017), the court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement in a case where plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.

In Henderson v. 1400 Northside Drive, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-03767 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2017), the Firm achieved a settlement on the eve of trial on behalf of 37 male exotic dancers who were misclassified as independent contractors and required to pay to work through the imposition of mandatory house fees, fines, and tip-outs of other workers.

In Vaughan v. M-Enterm’t Props., LLC, No. 1:14-CV-914 (N.D. Ga. May 16, 2017), the court approved a settlement a week before trial for 28 female exotic dancers who the Court previously found were misclassified as independent contractors and were required to pay to work through fines, fees, and tip-outs to other workers.

In Febus v. Guardian First Funding Group, LLC, 90 F. Supp. 3d 240 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2015), plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a wage and hour settlement from which one of the individual defendants defaulted. The court ordered the defendant pay the amount due, imposed an additional thirty percent penalty on the amount due, and awarded interest. The court noted that Nichols Kaster had been


“attempting, in vain, to collect,” and emphasized that defendant “cannot avoid his contractual obligations because he has decided that the settlement terms no longer suit his interests.”

In Hart v. Rick’s Cabaret Int’l, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 3043, 2015 WL 5577713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015). the court granted final approval of a class-wide gross settlement, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and further awarding plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service awards to the named plaintiffs and discovery participants.

In the consolidated lawsuits of Casey v. Citibank, N.A., No. 5:12-cv-0820 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2014) and Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:13-cv-00353, 2014 WL 4120599 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2014), the court granted final approval of an approximately settlement on behalf of settlement classes who were force-placed with flood or hazard insurance by Citibank, N.A. The settlement also provides substantial injunctive relief, forbidding Citibank and its affiliates from accepting commissions or any other form of compensation in connection with force-placed insurance for a period of six years, places limits on the amount of insurance coverage that Citibank may require borrowers to maintain, and requires Citibank to offer class members the opportunity to reduce their flood insurance coverage if Citibank had increased their coverage amount to an amount in excess of the amount required under federal law. The court found the settlement to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate, in the best interests of the Settlement Classes” and overruled nine objections.

In Bible v. General Revenue Corp., No. 12-cv-01236 RHK (D. Minn. June 27, 2014), the court granted final approval of a settlement on behalf of approximately 134,000 class members, more than double the statutory cap for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action.

In Farmer v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 5:11-cv-00935 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2013), the court granted final approval of the parties’ multi-million-dollar settlement with significant prospective injunctive relief, finally certifying a class of 25,000 Texas mortgagors who had been sent letters requesting proof of hazard insurance in violation of the language of their deeds of trust, and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel.

In Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. 8:11-cv-01823 (D. Md. Oct. 2, 2013), the court approved the parties’ million settlement for a class of over 50,000 under the Fair Credit Reporting Act in a case where plaintiffs alleged that the defendant employer had improperly procured consumer reports on employees and applicants and had failed to comply with the pre-adverse action notice requirements of the Act.

In Ulbrich v. GMAC Mortgage, No. 11-CIV-62424, 2013 WL 8692404 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2013), the court granted final settlement approval and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel for a 2,000+ nationwide class. The case involved claims against GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Balboa Insurance Services, Inc. relating to force-placed wind insurance.


In Eldredge v. City of Saint Paul, No. 09-2018 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2011), plaintiff Eldredge reached a settlement of his case that was the second largest paid by the City of Saint Paul in an employment lawsuit.

In Hofstetter v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. C- 10-01313, 2011 WL 1225900 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011), Nichols Kaster was appointed class counsel for four classes encompassing approximately 40,000 mortgagors against Chase Bank. In the same case, Nichols Kaster secured an approximately

settlement for the classes. Hofstetter, 2011 WL 5545912 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011).

| Appellate Achievements

In Brotherston v. Putnam Investments, LLC, 907 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of defendants’ directed verdict motion, holding that plaintiffs had met their burden of proving loss causation, and that plaintiffs’ damages model constituted a viable measurement of the losses suffered by Putnam’s employees as a result of defendants’ fiduciary breaches. The defendant field a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in Putnam Investments, LLC v. Brotherston, No. 18-926, 2020 WL 129535 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2020), the Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition. The case is remanded to the district court for continued trial proceedings under the First Circuit’s holding that the burden to prove causation is on defendants and plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of losses to the plan as a result of defendants’ mismanagement.

In Ray v. County of Los Angeles, 935 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit ruled for the plaintiffs on two distinct issues. First, the Court upheld the District Court’s ruling that the County of Los Angeles was not entitled to Sovereign Immunity as an arm of the state for its role in implementing the In-Home Supportive Services program for homecare workers in Los Angeles County. In so holding, the Court declined to overturn long-standing Ninth Circuit precedent outlining the “arm of the state” doctrine, and it determined that, under the existing five-factor test, four of the factors weighed against immunity for the County. In the second part of its ruling, the Court reversed the District Court’s holding regarding the effective date of Department of Labor regulations governing homecare workers employed by third parties, holding that the regulations at issue were effective January 1, 2015, despite industry challenges to the regulations that were successful at the district court level but ultimately unsuccessful on appeal.

In Wingate v. Metropolitan Airport Commission A19-0226 (August 19, 2019), Wingate appealed the district court’s summary judgment finding in favor of Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) dismissing the whistleblower claim. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision ruling the evidence presented by Wingate including his positive performance reviews, his supervisor’s remarks, MAC’s promotion patterns, and a sergeant’s similar report of retaliatory conduct support an inference that Wingate’s engagement in protective activity was the true reason that MAC did not promote him to sergeant, thus raising a material fact dispute on the issue of pretext.

In Moore v. City of New Brighton, A18-2111, (July 29, 2019), the parties filed cross appeals where Moore appealed the district court’s summary judgment decision and the city appealed the district court


and the Court of Appeals subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. In a published decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment decision, finding that the evidence showing the city maintained the administrative, home-bound leave for a period so long and so inconsistent with its purported reason for commencing the leave creates a material fact dispute as to whether the city’s actions “penalized” the sergeant under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act and whether the city’s reason is pretextual. Further, both the district court and the court of appeals rejected the city’s jurisdictional argument and held that both courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over Moore’s claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

Frost v. BNSF Railway, Co., 914 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2019), was tried to a jury in Montana in December 2016. Mr. Frost alleged that he was retaliated against when BNSF terminated his employment after he reported suffering from PTSD. Mr. Frost was diagnosed with PTSD after he was nearly struck by an oncoming train while repairing a section of the track after his supervisor released track authority but failed to inform him and his fellow crew members. Pursuant to the Defendant’s request, the jury was provided an honest belief instruction and a defense verdict resulted. Mr. Frost appealed, arguing that the instruction was error because it conflicted with the clear language of the Federal Railway Safety Act (“FRSA”) and granted the jury a short-cut to rule for BNSF while ignoring evidence of retaliation. The Ninth Circuit agreed. In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit definitively held there was no requirement that FRSA plaintiffs separately prove discriminatory intent under the FRSA’s contributing factor standard, and thus the instruction was error. The Ninth Circuit reversed the trial verdict and remanded for a new trial.

In McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, FSB, 862 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, finding that the defendant’s mortgage underwriters did not fit within the administrative exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act and remanding for judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on the issue.

In Clark v. Centene Co. of Texas, L.P., 656 F. App’x 688 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that appeals nurses do not fall within the administrative or professional exemptions of the FLSA overtime requirements.

In Carter v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC, 822 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, finding that plaintiff’s had Article III standing to bring this action regarding the excessive fees for providing copies of plaintiffs’ medical records charged by defendants, and stating that “because the complaint alleged that each name plaintiff “through [her or his] counsel” had “paid” the charges demanded for the records, and that the “ultimate expense” was borne by the plaintiffs, the complaint plausibly alleged that plaintiffs, as principals acting through their agents, had been injured by the alleged overcharges.”

In Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, 815 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to decertify the collective and affirmed the trial verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit ruled that Plaintiff’s presentation of


representative testimony was appropriate at trial for proving liability for the collective and estimated average approach to calculating damages.

In Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015), reh’g. en banc denied, 807 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1607 (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against a student loan guarantor for wrongfully charging collection fees on a defaulted student loan, finding that plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and for violations of the RICO Act were not preempted by the Higher Education Act, and stating that “a guaranty agency may not impose collection costs on a borrower who is in default for the first time but who has timely entered into and complied with an alternative repayment agreement.”

In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a group of employees represented by Nichols Kaster. The Court upheld a Department of Labor interpretation granting minimum wage and overtime compensation for mortgage loan officers.

In Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, 835 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Aug. 14, 2013), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that under Minnesota law, employers cannot require employees to reimburse them from their tips for items such as cash register shortages, unsigned credit card receipts, and customer walk outs. The Court also found that employees do not have to show that because of the deductions their wages fell below the minimum wage in order to prove a violation of Minn. Stat. § 181.79. In this case, the plaintiffs were over 750 employees who worked at three different bars/night clubs in Minneapolis. At a jury trial in 2011, the plaintiffs prevailed on their record-keeping and certain minimum wage claims, but lost on the unlawful deductions claims. Nichols Kaster appealed the deductions issue, and took it all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where the Court agreed with plaintiffs and instructed the lower court to enter judgment on the plaintiffs’ behalf on this claim.

In Boaz v. Federal Express Customer Info. Services, Inc., 725 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that plaintiff, a FedEx project manager who had claimed that FedEx had failed to pay her overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and paid her less than male coworkers performing the same job, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, could pursue her overtime and gender discrimination claims. The federal laws at issue provide employees three years to file a lawsuit and FedEx had plaintiff sign an application which stated that lawsuits had to be brought within 6 months or claims were lost. The lower court had dismissed plaintiff’s claims, citing the application. The Sixth Circuit unanimously sided with plaintiff, reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial.

In Calderon v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 809 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of affirmative summary judgment in favor of approximately one hundred current and former Security Investigators, finding that they were not covered by the administrative exemption. Specifically, the Appellate Court found that plaintiffs’ primary job duty was not the performance of work directly related to general business operations.


In Lass v. Bank of America, N.A., 695 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down the district court’s ruling that had dismissed plaintiff’s claims. The court found that plaintiff’s allegations regarding excessive flood insurance and improper kickbacks had been properly alleged and that the case should proceed.

In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiff and held that “an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the [Act’s] anti-retaliation provision.” This was a huge win for employees all over the country, as the Supreme Court’s decision set a new FLSA anti-retaliation standard.

| Trial Verdicts and Arbitration Awards

In Cummings v. Chevron Corp., JAMS Case No. 1100086694 (June 8, 2018), an arbitrator issued a final award in the amount of $511,533.95 in favor of Donnie Cummings, a Well Site Supervisor who worked for Chevron. The arbitrator ruled that Chevron misclassified Cummings as an independent contractor and also misclassified him as exempt from the overtime provisions of state and federal law. The arbitrator awarded Cummings $284,270.15 in unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and meal and rest period premiums, and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $227,263.80.

In Kaiser v. Gortmaker et al., No. 15-cv-01030, (District of South Dakota, Dec. 21, 2017) following a five-day trial in Aberdeen, South Dakota, a six-person jury returned a $1.2 million verdict in favor of former South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation agent, Laura Zylstra-Kaiser. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found in favor of Kaiser on both her retaliation and gender discrimination claims. The jury awarded Kaiser $311,812.00 in lost wages, $498,929.00 in lost retirement benefits, and $400,000.00 in emotional distress damages.

In Clark v. Centene Company of Texas, LP, 104 F. Supp. 3d 813 (W.D. Tex. 2015), upon the conclusion of a bench trial, the court awarded damages to a collective action of utilization review nurses. The court found that plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to create a just and reasonable inference as to overtime hours worked by the collective and awarded liquidated damages. This victory followed the court’s order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and defendant’s motion for decertification last year, holding that the defendant misclassified its utilization nurses. 44 F. Supp. 3d 674 (W.D. Tex. 2014). The court ruled that plaintiffs are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime laws and are thus eligible for overtime pay. The court further held that defendant’s claim that each plaintiff’s claim would need to be analyzed individually to determine liability and damages was without merit.

In Rhodes v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047475, Garcia v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047422, Good v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047220, and Green v. CashCall, Inc., JAMS Ref. No. 1200047225 (2014), a JAMS arbitrator ruled that CashCall misclassified Rhodes and Green, loan processers, and Garcia and Good, underwriters, as exempt from the overtime requirements of California and federal law. The arbitrator awarded Rhodes $15,000 in unpaid overtime plus an additional $15,000


in liquidated damages, along with $88,179 in attorneys’ fees and costs, Green was awarded $15,067.72 in damages, as well as $54,165.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The arbitrator also awarded Garcia $10,000 in unpaid overtime plus an additional $10,000 in liquidated damages, along with $98,709 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and Good was awarded $43,631 in unpaid overtime, as well as $50,627.49 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

In Walsten v. Shank Power Products Co., Inc., No. 19HA-CV-12-1094 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Sept. 9, 2013), a minority shareholder case, an advisory jury returned a $700,000 verdict for the plaintiff, finding for him on his claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of his reasonable expectation of continuing employment. The trial judge subsequently issued an order sustaining the $700,000 advisory verdict and awarding $200,000 in attorneys’ fees.

In Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 2:08-cv-21 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 2011), the jury found that defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay nearly 300 cable installers for all overtime hours worked. The district court entered judgment with damages for the plaintiffs.

| Summary Adjudication

In Deluca v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 386 F.Supp.3d 1235 (N.D. Cal. 2019), the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ affirmative summary judgment motion and denied Defendant’s summary judgment motion. The court found that Farmers could not satisfy either duties prong of the administrative exemption. As a result, the court determined that plaintiffs and class members were misclassified as exempt under state and federal law and are entitled to overtime premiums.

In Rego v. Liberty Mutual Managed Care, LLC, 367 F. Supp. 3d 849 (E.D. Wis. 2019), the court found as a matter of law that a defendant insurance company misclassified its utilization management nurses as exempt from overtime protections under the administrative and the professional exemptions. The plaintiffs primary job duty consisted of reviewing medical authorization requests against well-established guidelines to determine whether the criteria for medical necessity are satisfied. The court held in part that this work involved the performance of routine mental work, likened to inspection-type duties as opposed to bedside nursing.

In Henderson v. 1400 Northside Drive, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-3767, 2016 WL 3125012 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2016), the district court granted in part Plaintiffs’ affirmative motion for summary judgment on the issues of: (1) whether the owner qualified as a joint employer, (2) the viability of the defendants’ counterclaims, and (3) whether minimum wage damages includes recovery for fines, fees, and tipouts paid by the employee to the employer. In an earlier order, the court also the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of: (1) the creative professional exemption, finding that defendants misclassified adult entertainers as exempt from the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the FLSA; and (2) offset, finding that defendants could not offset their minimum wage obligations with tips paid by customers to adult entertainers. 110 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (N.D. Ga. 2015).


In Vaughan v. M-Enterm’t Props., LLC, No. 1:14-CV-914, 2016 WL 7365201 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2016), the district court granted in part exotic dancer plaintiffs’ affirmative motion for summary judgment on the issues of (1) whether entertainers qualify as employees under the FLSA, (2) whether related entity defendants qualified as joint employers, (3) the viability of the defendants’ offset defense, and (4) the viability of the defendants’ counterclaims.

In Heaton v. Social Finance, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-05191-the, 2015 WL 6003119 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2015), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that there were triable issues of fact as to whether defendants had violated the statutes at issue, whether the alleged violations were willful, and finding that defendants had failed to meet their burden as to plaintiffs’ claims under the California Unfair Competition Law.

In Hart v. Rick’s Cabaret Int’l, Inc., the court denied decertification of the FLSA Collective and Rule 23 Class of approximately 2,300 adult entertainers at Rick’s Cabaret in New York and granted, in part, plaintiffs’ affirmative motion for partial summary judgment on damages, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude the Class was owed less than $10.8 million. No. 09-Civ-3043, 2014 WL 6238175 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2014). This significant ruling came approximately one year after the court ruled that the Class and Collective Members are employees as a matter of law under the FLSA and New York Labor Law and that Rick’s Cabaret violated both laws by failing to pay wages. The court further held that the money entertainers received from Rick’s Cabaret’s customers were tips and not service charges that could offset wage obligations and that Rick’s Cabaret violated New York Labor Law by charging Class and Collective Members fines and fees as a condition of employment. 967 F. Supp. 2d 901 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2013).

In Wolfram v. PHH Corp., No. 1:12-cv-599, 2014 WL 2737990 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2014), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the assigned real estate offices from where plaintiffs, who are current or former loan officers employed by defendant, worked where all serving as the “employer’s place of business” under the outside sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This established that an employee may work from multiple sites, not technically owned or operated by the employer, and each of those sites can be considered the “employer’s place of business” under the regulations, therefore any work performed at these sites is not “outside” work under the outside sales exemption.

In MacIntyre v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-89-J-25JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2014), the court granted affirmative summary judgment to plaintiff (a Minnesota resident) on a breach of contract claim for an unpaid bonus and used its discretion to enforce Minnesota state law for defendant’s (a Florida company) failure to promptly pay wages. The court simultaneously denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender discrimination claims ruling, in part, that defendant’s actions toward plaintiff constituted direct evidence of gender discrimination.

In Huff v. Pinstripes, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Minn. 2013), the court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Pinstripes had violated the Minnesota Fair Labor


Standards Act’s provisions on tip-pooling by requiring its servers to share their tips with “server assistants,” who act as servers’ support staff at the restaurant.

In Ernst v. DISH Network, LLC, No. 12-8794-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2014), the court ruled on plaintiff’s and two of the defendants’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment, granting plaintiff’s motion and denying defendants’ motion. The court ruled that the summary report received by two of the defendants was a “consumer report” for purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it “communicated information bearing on Plaintiff’s character, general reputation, or mode of living, and the information was collected and expected to be used for ‘employment purposes.’”

In Kirsch v. St. Paul Motorsports, Inc., No. 11-cv-02624, 2013 WL 1900620 (D. Minn. May 7, 2013), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety, finding that plaintiff had put forth sufficient evidence for a prima facie claim of age discrimination.

In Bollinger v. Residential Capital, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (W.D. Wash. 2012), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that defendants misclassified the underwriter plaintiffs under the administrative exemption, and rejected defendants’ argument that there was no evidence of willful violation of the FLSA, stating that “a jury could conclude that Defendants knowingly and recklessly” misclassified plaintiffs.

In Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2011), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of misclassification, finding that defendants misclassified adult entertainers as independent contractors and that the entertainers were in fact employees covered by the FLSA.

| Class and Collective Certification

In MacDonald, et al. v. CashCall, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-02781-MCA-ESK, Dkt 102 (D. N.J. Oct. 31, 2019) the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointed Nichols Kaster, PLLP class counsel in case involving more than 11,000 borrowers where Defendants are alleged to have violated usury law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and RICO.

In Brotherston v. Putnam Investments, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-13825 (D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2016), the court certified a class of current and former participants in the Putnam Retirement Plan and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants mismanaged the plan and engaged in prohibited transactions in breach of their fiduciary duties under ERISA.

In Harris v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 329 F.R.D. 616, 620 (D. Neb. 2019), Nichols Kaster won class certification and was appointed class counsel for a class of over 7,000 railroad employees who plaintiffs alleged had been removed from their jobs in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

In Ayala v. GEICO, No. 7:18-cv-03583 (Dec. 5, 2018), the district court certified a collective class under the FLSA for Auto Adjuster Trainees who alleged they were not paid for all their overtime worked during training.


In Bell v. Michigan Civil Service Commission and Jan Winters, State Personnel Director, No. 17-003861-CV (Mich. Cir. Ct., Nov. 17, 2018), Nichols Kaster won class certification and was appointed class counsel for a class of over 600 African-American applicants who plaintiffs alleged had been discriminated against by defendants through the use of their entry-level law enforcement examination.

In Dunham-Sunde v. The Copper Hen Cakery, No. 27-CV-17-17288 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Aug. 28, 2018), the court certified a class of over one hundred restaurant servers to pursue claims against a local restaurant for its unlawful tip-sharing practices in violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

In Deluca v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. 17-cv-00034, 2018 WL 1981393 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018), the court granted class certification of California state law overtime claims and related claims for a group of special investigators who allege that Farmers misclassified them as exempt from overtime. The court previously granted conditional certification of the plaintiffs’ FLSA overtime claims.

In Wildman v. American Century Serv., LLC, 2017 WL 6045487 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2017), the court certified a class of current and former participants in the American Century Retirement Plan and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions.

In Ganci v. MBF Inspection Svcs., Inc., 323 F.R.D. 249 (S.D. Ohio 2017), the court granted class certification of a class of pipeline inspectors who worked for MBF and were paid based on a day rate, who sought unpaid overtime under Ohio state law. The court had previously granted conditional collective certification of the plaintiffs’ FLSA overtime claims. 2016 WL 5104891 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2016).

In Moreno v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., 1:15-cv-09936, 2017 WL 3868803 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017), the court certified a class of current and former participants in the Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants mismanaged the plan in breach of their fiduciary duties under ERISA.

In Sims v. BB&T Corp., No. 1:15-cv-732, 2017 WL 3730552(M.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2017), the district court certified a class of current and former participants in the BB&T Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan and appointed Nichols Kaster as co-class counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan.

In Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am., L.P., 8:15-cv-01614, 2017 WL 2655678 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2017), the district court certified a class of current and former participants in the Allianz Asset Management of America L.P. 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants improperly managed plan assets and breached their fiduciary duties.

In Mayfield-Dillard v. Direct Home Health Care, Inc., No. 0:16-cv-3489, 2017 WL 945087 (D. Minn. Mar. 10, 2017), the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification, certifying a


group of home health care workers who challenged Defendant’s practice of paying straight-time only, for overtime hours worked.

In McQueen v. Chevron, No. C 16-02089, 2017 WL 8948943 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017), the Court granted conditional certification of an FLSA collective for well site managers and drill site managers who performed services for Chevron throughout the country, rejecting Chevron’s arguments that the various intermediary staffing companies and differing contractual terms put the workers on different footing.

In Tamez v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas), Inc., No. 5:15-cv-330, 2015 WL 7075971 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2015), the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification, conditionally certifying a class of employees alleging violations of the overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by a multinational corporation that produces major commodities including oil and gas.

In Miller v. Fleetcor Technologies Operating Co., LLC, 118 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2015), the court denied defendant’s motion for decertification, agreeing with plaintiffs that each individual claim and the case as a whole should be kept together, allowing plaintiffs to move forward as a collective group.

In Pearsall-Dineen v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. 13-cv-06836-JEI-JS, 2014 WL 2873878 (D. N.J. June 25, 2014), the court conditionally certified the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime case as a collective action. The judge’s order authorized notice of the lawsuit to be disseminated to all mortgage underwriters who worked for Freedom Mortgage in the last three years, providing them the opportunity to join the lawsuit and to assert their overtime claims against the defendant for failing to pay them overtime hours.

In Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. C 12-2506-LB, 2014 WL 2734953 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2014), the court issued a broad class certification ruling on behalf of plaintiff-borrowers who were force-placed with flood insurance. In its order, the court certified multi-state classes of borrowers spanning forty different states to pursue claims against U.S. Bank for breach of their mortgage agreements stemming from U.S. Bank’s force-placed insurance practices. In addition, the court separately certified classes of borrowers in California and New Mexico to pursue claims against U.S. Bank and its force-placed insurance vendor, ASIC, for unjust enrichment, unfair business practices, and/or breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In Arnett v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:11-cv-01372-SI (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2014), the court preliminarily approved a $31 million settlement for approximately 625,000 class members, the largest common fund settlement ever negotiated in a case involving force-placed flood insurance.

In Ernst v. DISH Network, LLC, No. 12-8794-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2013), the court appointed Nichols Kaster as interim class counsel for the putative class with claims against Defendant Sterling Infosystems, Inc., finding that Nichols Kaster had “demonstrated it is able fairly and adequately to represent the interests of the putative class.


In Gustafson v. BAC Home Loan Services, LP, No. 8:11-cv-00915 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013), Judge Josephine Staton Tucker appointed Nichols Kaster as co-lead interim class counsel for multiple putative classes in a force-placed insurance case against Bank of America and other defendants.

In Spar v. Cedar Towing & Auction, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-11-24993 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Oct. 16, 2012), Nichols Kaster won class certification and was appointed class counsel for a class of approximately six thousand Minneapolis consumers who plaintiffs alleged had been charged illegal towing fees by defendant.

| Denial of Motions to Dismiss

In Intravaia v. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, No. 1:19-CV-973, 2020 WL 58276 (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2020), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in full, holding plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under ERISA relating to the administration of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s 401(k) plan.

In Reetz v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., No. 518CV00075, 2019 WL 4233616 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2019), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part, holding plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management of the Lowe’s 401(k) plan.

In Karpik v. Huntington Bancshares Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1153, 2019 WL 7482134 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2019), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part and held that plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management and monitoring of Huntington Bank’s 401(k) plan.

In Belt v. P.F. Chang’s, No. 18-cv-03831 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2019), the court denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the DOL’s new interpretation of the FLSA was unreasonable and not subject to deference, confirming that Plaintiffs had stated a claim for minimum wage violations due to P.F. Chang’s failing to pay its servers the full minimum wage when they performed related yet untipped labor, such as side work, for more than 20% of their time in a workweek.

In Nelsen v. Principal Global Investors Trust Co., No. 4:18-cv-00115 (S.D. Iowa, Jan. 24, 2019), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part, holding plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management of Principal’s collective investment trusts.

In In re M&T Bank Corp. ERISA Litig., No. 16-cv-375, 2018 WL 4334807 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2018), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part, holding plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management of the M&T Bank Corporation Retirement Savings Plan.

In Velazquez v. Massachusetts Fin. Servs. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 252 (D. Mass. 2018), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part and held that plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management of the Massachusetts Financial Services


Company MFSavings Retirement Plan and the Massachusetts Financial Services Company Defined Contribution Plan.

In Beach v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 1:17-cv-00563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2018), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part and held that plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA.

In Wildman v. American Century Serv., LLC, 237 F. Supp. 3d 902 (W.D. Mo. 2017), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions by defendants in connection with the American Century Retirement Plan.

In Johnson v. Fujitsu Technology Business of America, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 3d 460 (N.D. Cal. April 11, 2017), the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, and held that plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management of the Fujitsu Group Defined Contribution and 401(k) Plan.

In Moreno v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., 1:15-cv-09936, 2016 WL 5957307 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part and held that plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management of the Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan.

In Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am., L.P., 8:15-cv-01614, 2016 WL 4507119 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in substantial part and held that plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA relating to the management of the Allianz Asset Management of America L.P. 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan.

In Bowers v. BB&T Corporation, No. 1:15-cv-732-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2016), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s allegations regarding Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) violations related to defendant’s management of plaintiffs’ 401(k) Savings Plans are sufficient for litigation to move forward.

In Brotherston v. Putnam Investments, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-13825, 2016 WL 1397427 (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2016), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s allegations regarding Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) violations related to defendant’s management of plaintiffs’ 401(k) Savings Plans are sufficient for litigation to move forward.

In Johnson v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 3d 944 (W.D. Mo. 2015), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s allegations regarding Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and the willfulness of defendant’s conduct sufficient for litigation to move forward.

In Lengel v. HomeAdvisor, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (D. Kan. 2015), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s allegations regarding Fair Credit Report Act violations and the willfulness of defendant’s conduct sufficient for litigation to move forward.


In Holmes v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:12-cv-00487, 2013 WL 2317722 (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2013), the court denied four motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims regarding force-placed insurance and allowing the case to proceed.

In Walls v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:11-cv-00673, 2012 WL 3096660 (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2012), a case regarding force-placed flood insurance, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiff’s mortgage agreement did not explicitly provide that the lender’s flood insurance requirement could change at will and that Kentucky contracts contain provisions which can impose limits on discretion afforded by a contract, thus rejecting defendant’s interpretation of plaintiff’s mortgage agreement for purposes of the motion.

| Defeat of Motions to Compel Arbitration

In Doll House, Inc. v. Tapia, Nos. 5D16-4235, 5D16-4455 (Fla. DCA Nov. 21, 2017), the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District affirmed per curium a trial court ruling denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court of appeals found that the parties never formed a binding agreement, and alternatively that the agreement at issue was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

In Payne v. WBY, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2015) the court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of opt-in plaintiffs in an FLSA conditionally certified collective action. The court held that the defendant’s alleged posting of an arbitration agreement on a bulletin board in the breakroom without additional notice to workers of its existence, its terms, or its binding nature was insufficient to establish an offer or acceptance of its terms.


| Partner Biographies

has over 35 years of experience in the practice of law, has tried over 100 cases to verdict and has obtained over $50 million dollars for his class and collective clients. Don is highly respected by the legal community, as seen by his fellowship in The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Don was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2015 and 2016 for his work in Litigation-Labor & Employment. Education: B.A. Augsburg College 1968, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 1971.

is a Civil Trial Law Specialist who has tried well over 100 cases to verdict or decision. He has also handled many significant cases on appeal, including a successful case in front of the United States Supreme Court (Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.). He was ranked by Chambers USA as number one among plaintiffs’ employment lawyers in Minnesota, was named Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers in 2012, and 2016, and has been listed by Super Lawyers of Minnesota as one of the top 10 lawyers in the State. Jim’s success in the courtroom includes earning many million dollar and multi-million dollar recoveries for plaintiffs. Jim is also a frequent lecturer before local, state, and national organizations on damage recovery and trial skills. He was selected as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a premier professional trial organization in America whose membership is limited to 1% of the trial lawyers in any state or province. He was also selected to be a member of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Education: B.A. Marquette University 1976, J.D. Marquette University 1979.

is one of the co-leaders of the firm’s ERISA Class Action Team. Mr. Lukas also has extensive experience litigating class and collective actions and has tried over 50 cases over the course of his career. Mr. Lukas has been recognized by his peers as one of ”The Best Lawyers in America“ and is frequently named to the Minnesota Super Lawyers list. He also has had many publications and speaking engagements about issues and strategies for plaintiff class action lawyers and the plaintiffs’ bar. Education: B.A. St. John’s University 1988, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 1991.

has been named “Attorney of the Year” twice by Minnesota Lawyer for his work protecting employees’ rights, named one of “The Best Lawyers in America” for the last seven years, named to the Minnesota Super Lawyers “Top 100” list four times, and named to the Minnesota Super Lawyers list for 17 consecutive years. Steve was honored by the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association as the recipient of the 2014 Karla Wahl Dedicated Advocacy Award. The Award is given to recipients “for their ceaseless and courageous efforts” to protect and advance the rights of Minnesota employees. Steve was also the recipient of the 2011 Distinguished Pro Bono Service Award from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, was selected for the Merit Selection Panel regarding the Re-Appointment of U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan (D. Minn. 2012), was further recognized in 2014 by the United States District Court and Chief Judge Michael J. Davis for his involvement in the Pro Se Project, a project by the United States District Court


of Minnesota for assisting individuals representing themselves in federal court, and has received the Martindale Hubble AV Preeminent rating. Steve’s trial experience includes trials to verdict in sexual harassment, whistleblower, reprisal/retaliation, commission, contract, gender discrimination, marital status discrimination, disability, and wage and hour claims. Steve has also litigated several notable cases having substantial effect on employees’ rights under state and federal employment laws. Steve is often invited to lecture on employment issues both nationally and locally. He has also authored a number of articles on employment law issues such as sexual harassment in the workplace. Education: B.A. Concordia College 1990, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 1995 cum laude.

is a managing partner, and Chair of the Firm’s Business Development and Marketing Groups, which originate class and collective actions and market the firm. She has dedicated her career to litigating wage and hour cases in an aggressive, creative, and strategic manner. She is one of the leaders of a practice group that has been described as a "powerhouse" for mass wage and hour litigation and arbitration. Michele has the experience, resources, and staff to take on any company regardless of size. She has handled several jury trials and arbitrations in her fight for employee rights and prides herself on the firm's reputation as a leader in national wage and hour class and collective action litigation. Michele has litigated hundreds of class and collective actions involving positions such as home health aides, loan officers, retail salespersons, oil and gas workers, assistant managers, field service engineers, call center representatives, exotic dancers, inside sales representatives, restaurant workers, insurance adjusters, property specialists, property managers, installers, service technicians, and road construction laborers. She is additionally admitted to practice before the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Michele is active in several organizations. She is the Co-Vice-Chair, ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law, Annual Conference Planning Committee, Co-Chair and a faculty member of the Practicing Law Institute’s Wage & Hour Litigation and Compliance conference, the Co-Chair of the ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law, Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee, the Co-Chair of the ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law, Revenue and Partnership Development Committee, Track Coordinator, ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law, Wage & Hour Track for Annual LEL Conference, Co-Chair, ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law, Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee, FLSA Subcommittee, and Co-Chair, ABA Section Labor & Employment Law, Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee, WARN Act and Employee Polygraph Protection Act Subcommittee. She has also served as the Co-Editor-in-Chief, Associate Chapter Editor, and Contributing Author of the ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee, Fair Labor Standards Act Midwinter Report, an editorial board member for BNA’s the Fair Labor Standards Act Treatise, and a chapter editor for BNA’s Wage and Hour Laws: A State-by-State Survey. She designed and worked with a web company to develop a website called Arbitratorrater.com, providing a resource at no charge to worker and consumer rights advocates. She has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America, Super Lawyers, Top-Rated Lawyer by Avvo, Rising Star lists repeatedly, is a member of the Top 100 National Trial Lawyers, America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, Top 100 Lawyers National Advocates, Top 10 Wage and Hour Lawyers, Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers, and has been named a Lawyer of Distinction. She is a member of the Worker’s Rights Advocate Liaisons to U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education & Labor, meeting with the House Committee staff in Washington D.C. to discuss potential changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Michele is a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association, National Employment Law Project, American Association for Justice, and National


Trial Lawyers. Michele volunteers as an attorney for a foster child through the Children's Law Center. Education: B.A. St. Cloud State University 1997, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2000.

Morgan is a managing partner at the Firm and a Minnesota State Bar Association Civil Trial Specialist. Much of Matt’s career has focused on litigating class and collective actions on behalf of individuals seeking minimum wage and overtime pay and fighting discrimination. Last fall, Matt first-chaired a nineteen-day age discrimination class action trial on behalf of nearly 1000 people against the federal government. Matt has been recognized as a Super Lawyer every year since 2014, and has been named to the Who’s Who in Employment Law by Minnesota Law and Politics. Matt formerly served as an adjunct faculty member at William Mitchell College of Law (now Mitchell Hamline) teaching representation skills to first-year students and advanced advocacy to second- and third-year students. Matt is a frequent lecturer at legal seminars, focusing on litigation-related topics including trials and taking 30(b)(6) depositions. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 1996, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2000.

is an experienced attorney who has fought for the rights of everyday people throughout his legal career. As one of the leaders of Nichols Kaster’s Consumer Class Action Team, Kai has handled numerous cases on behalf of consumers against banks, mortgage servicers, and other large companies, and successfully argued before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Lass v. Bank of America, N.A., 695 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012). In addition, Kai also is one of the leaders of the firm’s ERISA litigation team, and is currently spearheading several cases involving breach of fiduciary duty claims against companies for mismanagement of their employee retirement plans. During his tenure at the firm, Kai has negotiated several class action settlements that have made a combined total of more than $200 million in relief available to consumers nationwide. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster in April 2010, Kai managed the Complex Litigation Division of the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, where he supervised and handled a large number of consumer enforcement cases. For example, in June and September of 2009, Kai co-chaired a three-week trial involving claims for fraudulent sales of annuities and legal plans to over 1,200 Minnesota senior citizens and won a favorable judgment from the trial court. In addition, he also spearheaded a significant enforcement action against Sprint Nextel relating to wrongfully-imposed contracts and early termination fees. Kai also has several years of prior experience representing plaintiffs in private practice, including two landmark class actions. For example, in Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a statewide wage and hour class action against Wal-Mart, Kai briefed and successfully co-argued the issue of class certification and significantly participated in the three-month trial of the case, paving the way for a multi-million-dollar payout to Wal-Mart’s Minnesota workers. In addition, Kai was one of only three plaintiff trial attorneys in Grutter v. Bollinger, a landmark class action lawsuit against the University of Michigan Law School that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2003. Kai has taught legal writing at Hamline University and previously served as a co-director of the Robert F. Wagner Moot Court Program at the University of Minnesota Law School. Education: B.A. Dartmouth College 1995 cum laude, J.D. University of Minnesota cum laude.

Srey is a Partner at Nichols Kaster, PLLP who has extensive litigation experience, primarily dedicating her legal practice to national wage and hour complex class and collective action


employment litigation. She has been a zealous advocate for thousands of employees over her 14-year career, representing a wide variety of workers in many industries including those who work in healthcare, insurance, financial services, communications, retail, manufacturing, and security industries as well as federal sector employees. Rachhana’s exceptional case management and advocacy skills, dedication to her clients, strong work ethic and outgoing personality have earned her the respect of her clients and of her colleagues in the legal community. Rachhana has tried several wage and hour cases, most notably obtaining a jury verdict that was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in favor of a group of nearly three hundred cable installers. In addition to her wage and hour practice, Rachhana is also currently litigating a large age discrimination class case venued at the EEOC. She is active in several organizations, holding leadership positions in a few. Rachhana is currently the Co-Chair of the National Employment Lawyer Association's (“NELA”) Wage & Hour Committee and Practice Group and the Co-Chair of the Association of Justice's (“AAJ”) Wage & Hour Litigation Group. She is also an active Board Member of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid. Rachhana is often invited to speak nationally and locally on a wide range of topics including class and collective action litigation strategies, wage and hour litigation, discovery issues, recent developments in the law, and age and gender discrimination. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 2000, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2004 cum laude.

is an experienced and tenacious litigator who has fought for workers’ and consumers’ rights throughout his career. Matt serves as the managing partner of Nichols Kaster’s San Francisco office, where he focuses his practice on class and collective wage and hour cases filed in California and throughout the country. Handling both large class actions and individual matters throughout this career, Matt has developed a record of success in significant and complex litigation. Matt litigates each of his cases with the same zealous advocacy and passionate protection of his clients’ rights, whether the case involves millions of dollars and thousands of clients, or thousands of dollars and one individual. In addition to representing workers across the country in wage and hour actions, Matt has also handled cases involving WARN Act violations, breach of contract, and severance negotiations. Matt is licensed in both California and Minnesota. Matt is an active volunteer at Workers' Rights Clinics through Legal Aid Work, where he supervises student attorneys in providing legal assistance to low wage workers. While attending the University of Minnesota Law School, Matt was a staff member and Managing Tribute Editor of the University of Minnesota Journal of Global Trade. He also participated in the Child Advocacy Clinic, representing the interests of children as a student attorney in both Family and Juvenile Court. Education: B.A. Rhodes College 2002 magna cum laude, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2005 magna cum laude.

David Schlesinger is an experienced attorney who has been recognized for the quality of his work for employees. He is an MSBA Certified Employment Law Specialist who has been selected as a Super Lawyer for the last seven years. He teaches Law in Practice at the University of Minnesota Law School and is the former president of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association. David has successfully litigated a wide variety of employment claims, including several significant cases involving gender discrimination, cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and many other claims. His practice also includes an emphasis on the intersection of employment and business disputes, including litigation of breach of fiduciary duty and minority


shareholder claims. He has effectively defended employees from non-compete and trade secret claims brought by their former employers. Education: B.A. Mary Washington College 2001 cum laude, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2006 cum laude.

is a tough and determined litigator. Her practice focuses on complex class actions on behalf of protected groups and those harmed by corporate or governmental wrongdoing. Whether in the context of civil rights, illegal pay practices, loan issues, insurance coverage, consumer fraud, or other harm to vulnerable communities, Anna seeks out injustices to hold wrongdoers accountable and give all people a voice. She cares about and fights for her clients, brings a high level of skill and intellect to the fight, and has achieved great success for her clients in state and federal courts around the country, including the summary judgment victories referenced above in Huff, Hart, and Clincy, successful appeal in Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, and the trial verdict in FTS. Anna also serves on the Board of Directors of the Public Justice Foundation, a nationwide charitable organization supporting high-impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice and protect the Earth’s sustainability. She is a frequent speaker at national legal seminars, an adjunct professor of legal writing at the University of Minnesota Law School, and a past board member of the Minnesota chapter of the National Employment Lawyers’ Association. Education: B.A. University of Michigan 2002, J.D. Cornell Law School 2005.

is a tireless advocate dedicated to civil rights and social justice. She has helped tens of thousands of employees and consumers recover millions of dollars primarily in complex class and collective actions across the country. Rebekah has worked on the firm’s wage and hour team and was a founding member of the consumer practice area as well as the firm’s civil rights and impact litigation group. Rebekah has been recognized as a Minnesota Super Lawyer every year since 2014. Over the years, she has served on numerous trial and arbitration teams, successfully first-chairing her first bench trial. Rebekah has achieved several affirmative summary judgment determinations and certification decisions, including in Rego, Dunham-Sunde, Henderson, Vaughan, Spar, and Norris-Wilson, mentioned above. Rebekah leads the firm’s e-discovery committee. She has spoken at national seminars on various topics, including electronic discovery, class litigation, arbitration, equal pay, and various wage and hour issues. Rebekah is a practical instructor for the University of Minnesota’s Law & Practice course. She is a member of the District of Minnesota’s Federal Practice Committee, and a board member for the Complex Litigation eDiscovery Forum. She is very involved in the ABA’s Labor and Employment Law section. She serves as the employee vice chair of the section’s treatise committee; she is an associate editor for the FLSA Committee’s Mid-Winter Report; and she serves as a FLSL liaison to the ABA/LEL CLE Coordinating & Resources Committee. Education: B.S. Grand Valley State University 2004 magna cum laude, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2008 magna cum laude.

is a partner at Nichols Kaster, PLLP, in the firm’s Minneapolis office. She is a skilled and meticulous litigator, who has represented thousands of employees in class and collective actions to recover unpaid overtime, minimum wages, commissions, and other types of compensation. Reena has also advocated for employees in cases involving race, age and disability discrimination. She is a board member of a legal non-profit and frequently speaks at legal seminars and


conferences across the country. Reena has dedicated the majority of her career to helping employees combat wage theft and recover unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, and other unpaid compensation. She has represented employees in a variety of industries, including investigators, home health care workers, loan officers, mortgage underwriters, field service technicians, sales representatives, and restaurant workers. Reena has also litigated discrimination cases on both a class and individual level, advocating for employees whose employers have discriminated against them because of their age, race or disability. Reena has been asked to share her knowledge and experience with her peers, serving as a speaker at several national conferences. She has lectured on topics including wage and hour litigation, electronic discovery issues, attorney-client privilege and mediation/settlement. Reena also serves on the Board of Directors for the Minnesota Justice Foundation, a legal non-profit in Minnesota, and has been named a Rising Star by Minnesota Super Lawyers every year since 2014. Education: B.A. George Washington University 2002 magna cum laude, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2007 cum laude.

is a partner on Nichols Kaster’s Civil Rights and Impact Litigation team. Robert has more than a decade of experience litigating cases through trial in both court and arbitration. He has represented employees across the country on a variety of issues, including race, gender, and disability discrimination, employee misclassification, unpaid overtime, and unpaid wages. Robert previously served as Director of Litigation at the Impact Fund, a nationally recognized non-profit law firm in Berkeley, California devoted to achieving social justice through large scale impact litigation. He has been recognized as a Rising Star by Northern California and Minnesota Super Lawyers. He is licensed in California and Minnesota. Education: B.S. Middle Tennessee State University 2003 summa cum laude; J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2006 summa cum laude.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s national class-action litigation team. He represents consumers, employees, and retirees in lawsuits against some of the country’s largest corporations, holding these companies accountable when they fail to deal fairly and honestly with their employees and customers. His recent cases have led to the recovery of millions of dollars in retirement benefits for thousands of participants in 401(k) plans nationwide. Prior to joining the firm, Brock worked with a major Twin Cities law firm, and as a law clerk for two judges on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Brock also has worked as a Special Assistant State Public Defender, pro bono, and as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 2002, J.D. University of St. Thomas School of Law 2007 magna cum laude.

is a partner on Nichols Kaster’s ERISA Litigation Team. As a founding member of the ERISA litigation group, Mr. Engstrom has been counsel of record in every case brought by the group since its inception in 2015. In that time, the ERISA litigation group has negotiated settlements totaling approximately $80 million on behalf of retirement plan participants shortchanged by excessive fees and imprudent retirement plan investments. Before joining Nichols Kaster, Mr. Engstrom clerked for judges at both the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Hennepin County District Court. Prior to entering the legal profession, Mr. Engstrom spent six years working as a financial advisor, providing retirement and investment advice to hundreds of clients, and earning the Certified


Financial Planner™ designation. Education: B.A. Harvard College 1998, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2012 magna cum laude.

| Associate Biographies

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s ERISA litigation team where he represents employees whose retirement accounts have been shortchanged due to excessive fees, imprudent investments, employer self-dealing, and general mismanagement. Prior to joining the firm, Ben clerked for Judge Tom Fraser in Hennepin County District Court. During law school, he interned for the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, the ACLU of Minnesota, and earned the Law School Public Service Award. Prior to law school, Ben taught 7th grade English in Tulsa, Oklahoma and continued to work in schools while completing his law degree in Mitchell Hamline’s night program. Education: B.A., St. John's University, 2011, magna cum laude, J.D., Mitchell Hamline School of Law, 2017, magna cum laude.

is a member of the firm’s national wage and hour litigation team where she fiercely advocates for workers’ rights. Caroline is dedicated to furthering social justice and equity in the workplace on behalf of employees challenging their employers’ unfair practices. Caroline is a contributing editor to the Fair Labor Standards Act Midwinter Report of the ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law. During law school, Caroline served as a staffer, and subsequently Symposium Articles Editor, for the Minnesota Law Review and clerked for a nonprofit legal and policy advocacy organization focused on addressing gender inequality. Caroline was also the recipient of the ABA-Bloomberg BNA Award for Excellence in Health Law. Education: B.A. St. Olaf College 2015 magna cum laude, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2018 cum laude.

worked with the California Labor Commissioner while in law school and served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, and as Director of the Workers’ Rights Clinic. After law school, Daniel worked with a California law firm representing workers and unions in arbitrations and litigation. Daniel continues pursuing his passion for employment law at Nichols Kaster, working with the firm’s national wage and hour team out of the San Francisco office. Education: B.A. Princeton University 2005, J.D. University of California Berkeley School of Law 2011.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s ERISA litigation team where she represents employees whose retirement accounts have been shortchanged due to excessive fees, imprudent investments, employer self-dealing, and general mismanagement. Prior to joining the firm, Grace clerked for Judge Connolly, Judge Larkin, and Judge Bjorkman at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She graduated magna cum laude from the Mitchell Hamline School of Law and received three separate CALI awards for her work as the top-performing student in a class. During law school, she was a member of the Mitchell Hamline law review, worked as a law clerk for a Minneapolis business law firm, and received the Law School Public Service Award for her work as a pro bono law clerk at a top Minneapolis law


firm. Education: B.A., Minnesota State University 2012 magna cum laude, J.D. Mitchell Hamline School of Law 2018 magna cum laude

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s Civil Rights and Impact Litigation Team re Charlie focuses on class actions on behalf of employees, consumers, and other protected groups. Charlie’s cases challenge discrimination of all types, fraud, and other unfair practices. He has nearly a decade of experience as a civil litigator across a broad range of substantive practice areas. Charlie has been recognized as a “Minnesota Rising Star” by Super Lawyers magazine, and an “Up & Coming Attorney” by Minnesota Lawyer. He is active in professional organizations, having served as a member of the Board of Directors of both the Minnesota State Bar Association and Minnesota Continuing Legal Education. Education: B.A. University of Wisconsin-Madison 2003, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2006 magna cum laude.

is a member of the firm’s national class-action litigation team, fighting to ensure employees across the country are being paid fairly for their work. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Jay served as a law clerk to Ann D. Montgomery in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In law school, Jay worked as an editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law and published articles on energy law and policy through Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Outside of Nichols Kaster, Jay advises a local nonprofit that provides scholarships to graduating high school students whose lives have been enriched through the game of soccer. Education: B.A. St. John’s University 2007, J.D. Vermont Law School 2013 cum laude.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s individual rights litigation team and is dedicated to protecting the rights of current and former employees who face a wide-range of employment-related issues, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, minority shareholder, and contract disputes. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Laura worked as an associate for a Minneapolis litigation firm, focusing on minority shareholder, employment, and contract disputes. During law school, Laura was on the Executive Board of the Minnesota Law Review, the board of the Women’s Legal Student Association, and volunteered with the Advocates for Human Rights. Prior to attending law school, Laura worked for a Fortune 100 company in business-to-business sales supporting operations and logistics in small businesses. Education: B.A. University of St. Thomas 2010 magna cum laude, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2015.

is a Case Development Attorney for the Nichols Kaster’s Civil Rights and Impact Litigation Practice Group. In this role, she investigates new cases and works with other members of the Group to advance litigation. Kate formerly served as an Associate Attorney for the firm’s Individual Practice Group, where she represented employees in a wide range of employment-related matters, including but not limited to, allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and whistleblower claims. In addition to her practice, Kate has also served as an Adjunct Professor at St. Thomas Law School and Mitchell Hamline School of Law. Education: B.A. College of St. Catherine 2006 summa cum laude; J.D. University of St. Thomas School of Law 2011 cum laude.


was named a 2017 Minnesota Lawyer of the Year. Matt attended the University of Michigan Law School as a Clarence Darrow Scholar. At graduation, he received the Robert S. Feldman Award for outstanding work in labor and employment law. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster in 2016, Matt clerked for the Hon. Susan N. Burke in Hennepin County District Court and practiced plaintiffs’ employment law at another Twin Cities firm. Matt is part of Nichols Kaster’s individual rights team. Education: B.A. University of Colorado Boulder 2002 summa cum laude, Philosophy Ph.D. (ABD) University of Minnesota, J.D. University of Michigan Law School 2013 cum laude.

is a skilled and seasoned trial lawyer focused on aggressive advocacy, creative solutions, and responsiveness to clients. As a member of Nichols Kaster’s individual rights team, Lucas represents clients in a wide-range of employment matters, including harassment, retaliation and discrimination claims. Lucas also represents clients in civil rights claims, such as police misconduct and prisoner rights. Over his career, Lucas has tried many cases to verdict or decision. Most recently, Lucas represented a South Dakota law enforcement officer in a retaliation and sexual harassment lawsuit that resulted in a $1.2 million jury verdict. In a separate lawsuit, Lucas represented four golf course employees who were subject to harassment and retaliation in a court trial that resulted in a plaintiff’s verdict and treble damages under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). Lucas uses this unique trial experience to drive litigation strategy and provide his clients the best possible representation. Lucas is also an experienced appellate advocate. In 2018, Lucas successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Michael Frost v. BNSF Railway Co., 9:15-cv-000124-DWM. The Ninth Circuit’s decision addressed a hotly debated subject under the Federal Railway Safety Act (“FRSA”). The question before the Court was whether the honest belief instruction was proper because the FRSA’s contributing factor standard required plaintiffs to separately prove discriminatory intent. In the opinion, the Ninth Circuit definitively held that there is no requirement that FRSA plaintiffs separately prove discriminatory intent, and thus the instruction was error. Due to his experience, Lucas is a well-respected and sought-after speaker. Lucas is a frequent presenter at the ABA’s Labor and Employment and Employment Rights and Responsibilities conferences. In February 2019, Lucas also spoke at the College of Labor and Employment Lawyer’s Regional Program for the 4th and 11th Circuits in Charleston, South Carolina. Lucas participated in a three-member panel titled: The #MeToo Movement One Year Later: Where Are We Now? Lucas is a member Twin Cities Diversity in Practice’s Emerging Leaders Group and a contributor to Nichols Kaster’s training and marketing committees. Education: B.A. Villanova University 2004, J.D. Marquette University Law School 2011.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s individual rights practice group and assists employees with a wide-range of claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation and whistleblower protection. Michelle has been dedicated to employee rights and challenging unfair employment practices her entire career. While in law school, Michelle interned with an Administrative Law Judge of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and with the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Michelle was an associate with a leading employment litigation firm in New York, representing employees in individual, multi-party and class action cases. Education: B.A. New York University 2010 cum laude, J.D. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 2014 cum laude.


is a member of Nichols Kaster’s individual rights practice group, where she is committed to preserving workplace fairness and seeking justice for those employees whose rights have been violated. She represents individuals who have been discriminated against or terminated for unlawful reasons, including their sex, race, age, disability, or for blowing the whistle on illegal activity. Lindsey also assists clients by reviewing and negotiating severance packages and non-competition agreements. She also currently handles the firm’s FOIA litigation docket, assisting organizations with obtaining government records to which they are entitled. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Lindsey served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Frank J. Kundrat in St. Cloud, Minnesota. During law school, Lindsey was a Lead Editor on the Journal of Law & Inequality and the President of the Women’s Law Student Association. Education: B.A. College of St. Benedict 2011 magna cum laude and with distinction; J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2016.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s ERISA litigation team where he represents current and former employees whose retirement accounts have been shortchanged due to excessive fees, imprudent investments, employer self-dealing, and general mismanagement. Prior to joining the firm, Brandon practiced plaintiffs-side consumer and civil rights law. Education: B.A. University of Chicago 2007, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2012 cum laude.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s ERISA litigation team where she represents current and former employees whose retirement accounts have been shortchanged due to excessive fees, imprudent investments, employer self-dealing, and other mismanagement. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, she clerked for Justice Anne McKeig on the Minnesota Supreme Court. During law school, Chloe served as the editor-in-chief of the University of St. Thomas Law Journal, worked as a litigation law clerk for the League of Minnesota Cities, interned with the Advocates for Human Rights, and represented consumers in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Prior to law school, Chloe gained additional writing experience as well as employee benefits knowledge as a communications specialist with a focus on human resources topics. Education: B.A. University of Florida 2008 summa cum laude, J.D. University of St. Thomas School of Law 2016 magna cum laude.

has been practicing law with the firm since October 2017. Prior to that, he clerked for the Honorable Karen A. Janisch in Hennepin County State District Court. His practice has focused on national class action employment discrimination litigation and national wage and hour class and collective action litigation. He has represented hundreds, if not thousands, of workers who have been discriminated against or who are seeking to recover lost wages, including overtime pay and minimum wages, through collective, class, and hybrid actions. Since he started at Nichols Kaster, Neil has worked on multiple class and collective actions, involving positions such as railroad workers, home health aides, delivery drivers, oil field workers, and nurses. Neil has handled managing discovery and filing class certification and other motions in these cases. In addition to being a litigation associate at the firm, Neil also works with its Business Development Group, which originates class and collective actions. Neil is also a contributing editor to the ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law’s Fair Labor Standards Act Midwinter Report. Neil volunteers as an attorney for the Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid’s Housing


Section Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 2007 summa cum laude, Political Science Ph.D. work University of Chicago 2008-2010, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2015 summa cum laude.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s Civil Rights and Impact Litigation group. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Nicole served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Susan M. Robiner in Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District. During her time in law school, Nicole co-founded Emory LGBTQ Legal Services (ELLS), an organization created to provide pro bono legal assistance to members of Atlanta’s queer community. Her work with ELLS led to her receiving the 2018 Marion Luther Brittain Award, Emory University’s highest student honor, as well as the 2018 National LGBT Bar Association Student Leadership Award. Nicole’s academic research prior to law school explored the intersections of international human rights law, feminist theory, and international politics. Education: B.A. University of Kentucky 2014 summa cum laude, M. Phil. University of Cambridge 2015, J.D. Emory University School of Law 2018 with honors.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s ERISA litigation team where he represents current and former employees whose retirement accounts have been shortchanged due to excessive fees, imprudent investments, employer self-dealing, and general mismanagement. In law school, Jacob was an editor of the ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law and published an article on the association provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, he was an associate in a firm acting as general counsel for Taft-Hartley employee benefit funds. Education: B.A. University of Pennsylvania 2010, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2013 magna cum laude.

is a member of Nichols Kaster’s ERISA and consumer litigation teams where he represents current and former employees whose retirement accounts have been shortchanged due to excessive fees, imprudent investments, employer self-dealing, and general mismanagement, as well as consumers who have been harmed by corporate wrongdoing. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, he clerked for Justice David Lillehaug and Justice Anne McKeig on the Minnesota Supreme Court. During law school, Mark was an editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and interned with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 2011 summa cum laude, J.D. Harvard Law School 2016.

| Staff Attorney Biographies

s dedicated to fighting for employees and applicants who have been discriminated against for unlawful reasons including on the bases of their age, disability, race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. In addition, she helps employees pursue their fair and equal wages owed in the eyes of the law. Her work focuses primarily on representing classes fighting against discrimination. Laura has experience in both federal and private sector matters. During law school, Laura won the MSBA Labor and Employment Law Section Law Student Award in Labor Law. Laura participated in the AAJ Regional Trial Competition, was president of the Women Law Students Association, and volunteered for over 100 hours through the Minnesota Justice Foundation working as certified student attorney for the Washington County Public Defender’s Office and at Eldercare Rights


Alliance. She also completed an externship with the Honorable Gail Chang Bohr at Minnesota’s Second Judicial District. Before law school, Laura worked for a local company that provides residential care for people with disabilities where she discovered her passion for employment law. Education: B.A. University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire cum laude, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law.


EXHIBIT


Attorneys

Non-Attorneys


1 | P a g e

Valeo 2018 Attorney Hourly Rate Report

2018 An exclusive report by



34 | P a g e

Executive Summary

The Valeo 2018 Attorney Hourly Rate Report is the most in-depth look at Attorney hourly rates for large, middle-market and small Law Firms globally. The Report details the hourly rates of Partners, Counsel, Associates and Support Staff for 2012 - 2016 and Forecasts 2018 Rates. The Report has 4 main Sections: 1) Rates by Firm Annual Revenue Groups 2) Rates by Individual Law Firms (Overall, by Practice Areas) with Associate Class Year rates and 3) Magic Circle Firm Rates and 4) Dentons (separately since it opted out of the revenue group surveys).

A word on Valeo’s research and compilation methodology. Valeo has a Research Team that identifies hourly rates that are publicly disclosed. About 2,000 hourly rates per week of Attorneys and Support Staff for over 1,200 Law Firms globally are added to the database. Further research is required to “connect the dots” by adding detailed Attorney Profile information and linking the legal work performed to specific Clients and Client Industries. Through this process we are able to provide actionable data to users – Law Firms and Corporate Counsel - of the Valeo Attorney Hourly Rates and our Analytical Reports, including this one, to make important monetary decisions in terms of legal services offered and purchased. In terms of the Report, not all timekeepers will appear in every year so sometimes average rates may vary; in this case the trend line and averages over the 2012 – 2017 period are the best indicators. In the event that Valeo has no rates for a given field (Year or Position), an algorithm is used to estimate a rate or rates. Upon the request from Clients to complete the Rate Cards for most large Law Firms, we estimated some rates for various Associate Class Years and other Positions, these are marked with “E” for estimate. Valeo considers Senior Partners to be ones with 25+ years of experiencing (Law School Graduation Year of 1989 or sooner), Partners with 24 years or less experience and Senior Associates with 5 years or more experience. Of course, those experience levels may vary by Firm but seem to work for both Large Law Firms and Middle-Market ones.

Valeo takes no responsibility for the information obtained from public or private sources in compiling this Report or for the errors and omissions of its Research staff. This Report is for internal purposes only. Any other use by the purchaser of this Report, for example use in any Court or Mediation or in the Media, is prohibited except with the prior written consent of Valeo Partners. All comments, feedback and questions are welcomed and should be directed to Chuck Chandler, Partner of the Legal Consulting Practice Group of Valeo Partners, at [email protected].



131 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Senior Partner $ 1,149 $ 1,178 3% $ 1,211 3% $ 1,242 3% $ 1,275 3% $ 1,311 3% $ 1,347 3% Partner(E) $ 1,031 $ 1,053 2% $ 1,095 4% $ 1,122 2% $ 1,169 4% $ 1,202 3% $ 1,233 3% Counsel $ 895 $ 923 3% $ 978 6% $ 995 2% $ 1,040 5% $ 1,070 3% $ 1,094 2% Senior Associate $ 634 $ 666 5% $ 719 8% $ 783 9% $ 841 7% $ 923 10% $ 1,005 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 497 $ 545 10% $ 596 9% $ 641 8% $ 683 6% $ 756 11% $ 805 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 417 $ 469 12% $ 497 6% $ 560 13% $ 602 8% $ 658 9% $ 700 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 389 $ 427 10% $ 476 12% $ 514 8% $ 543 5% $ 585 8% $ 637 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 355 $ 380 7% $ 405 7% $ 442 9% $ 481 9% $ 509 6% $ 554 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 272 $ 304 12% $ 337 11% $ 369 9% $ 404 10% $ 448 11% $ 488 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 254 $ 281 11% $ 296 5% $ 327 11% $ 351 7% $ 399 14% $ 434 9% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 237 $ 242 2% $ 269 11% $ 286 6% $ 313 9% $ 347 11% $ 378 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 188 $ 210 12% $ 236 12% $ 266 12% $ 281 6% $ 319 13% $ 337 5% Overall $526 $557 6% $593 7% $629 6% $665 6% $711 7% $751 6%

Energy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Senior Partner(E) $ 1,150 $ 1,197 4% $ 1,256 5% $ 1,322 5% $ 1,364 3% $ 1,399 3% $ 1,443 3% Partner $ 1,044 $ 1,069 2% $ 1,108 4% $ 1,147 4% $ 1,200 5% $ 1,249 4% $ 1,277 2% Counsel $ 814 $ 832 2% $ 871 5% $ 904 4% $ 938 4% $ 974 4% $ 994 2% Senior Associate $ 560 $ 599 7% $ 648 8% $ 694 7% $ 785 13% $ 853 9% $ 920 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 434 $ 444 2% $ 496 12% $ 556 12% $ 628 13% $ 706 12% $ 770 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 386 $ 397 3% $ 446 12% $ 506 13% $ 572 13% $ 649 14% $ 708 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 347 $ 365 5% $ 406 11% $ 450 11% $ 515 14% $ 585 14% $ 638 9% 5th Year Associate $ 309 $ 321 4% $ 353 10% $ 401 13% $ 448 12% $ 509 14% $ 555 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 281 $ 293 4% $ 318 9% $ 369 16% $ 407 11% $ 453 11% $ 494 9% 3rd Year Associate $ 253 $ 266 5% $ 283 6% $ 321 13% $ 354 11% $ 398 12% $ 430 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 220 $ 237 8% $ 258 9% $ 289 12% $ 323 12% $ 350 9% $ 387 10% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 203 $ 206 2% $ 234 14% $ 263 12% $ 297 13% $ 322 9% $ 336 4% Overall $500 $519 4% $557 7% $602 8% $653 8% $704 8% $746 6%



158 | P a g e

Corporate Transactions and Securities

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate DLA Piper Senior Partner $ 816 $ 881 8% $ 901 2% $ 946 5% $ 1,006 6% $ 1,024 2% $ 1,065 4% Partner $ 756 $ 794 5% $ 812 2% $ 853 5% $ 890 4% $ 923 4% $ 960 4% Counsel $ 583 $ 612 5% $ 630 3% $ 647 3% $ 660 2% $ 675 2% $ 699 4% Senior Associate $ 441 $ 457 4% $ 485 6% $ 541 12% $ 589 9% $ 636 8% $ 676 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 339 $ 374 11% $ 398 6% $ 442 11% $ 471 7% $ 509 8% $ 556 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 299 $ 335 12% $ 364 8% $ 389 7% $ 415 7% $ 458 11% $ 504 10% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 272 $ 285 5% $ 317 11% $ 355 12% $ 382 7% $ 403 6% $ 441 9% 5th Year Associate $ 245 $ 254 4% $ 279 10% $ 327 17% $ 340 4% $ 367 8% $ 392 7% 4th Year Associate $ 220 $ 228 4% $ 248 9% $ 284 15% $ 306 7% $ 323 6% $ 361 12% 3rd Year Associate $ 192 $ 206 7% $ 216 5% $ 262 21% $ 275 5% $ 297 8% $ 321 8% 2nd Year Associate $ 171 $ 179 5% $ 192 7% $ 228 19% $ 245 8% $ 259 6% $ 283 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 148 $ 157 6% $ 171 9% $ 198 16% $ 225 14% $ 228 1% $ 251 10% Overall $373 $397 6% $418 5% $456 9% $484 6% $509 5% $542 7%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate DLA Piper Senior Partner $ 823 $ 843 2% $ 864 2% $ 900 4% $ 945 5% $ 966 2% $ 1,009 4% Partner(E) $ 717 $ 755 5% $ 786 4% $ 817 4% $ 842 3% $ 879 4% $ 908 3% Counsel(E) $ 641 $ 656 2% $ 686 5% $ 704 3% $ 740 5% $ 765 3% $ 790 3% Senior Associate(E) $ 467 $ 526 13% $ 567 8% $ 603 6% $ 666 10% $ 696 4% $ 765 10% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 375 $ 398 6% $ 443 11% $ 469 6% $ 510 9% $ 545 7% $ 569 5% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 317 $ 345 9% $ 364 5% $ 404 11% $ 449 11% $ 490 9% $ 523 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 302 $ 320 6% $ 341 6% $ 363 6% $ 408 13% $ 436 7% $ 471 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 248 $ 276 11% $ 298 8% $ 322 8% $ 363 13% $ 384 6% $ 414 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 230 $ 256 11% $ 279 9% $ 295 5% $ 316 7% $ 342 8% $ 365 7% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 203 $ 220 8% $ 246 12% $ 268 9% $ 294 10% $ 314 7% $ 336 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 176 $ 192 9% $ 212 10% $ 229 8% $ 254 11% $ 283 11% $ 309 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 162 $ 179 11% $ 193 8% $ 218 13% $ 232 6% $ 249 8% $ 278 12% Overall $389 $414 7% $440 6% $466 6% $502 8% $529 5% $562 6%



193 | P a g e

eMatters

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Jones Day Senior Partner $ 739 $ 774 5% $ 811 5% $ 834 3% $ 875 5% $ 896 2% $ 933 4% Partner $ 598 $ 614 3% $ 644 5% $ 671 4% $ 688 2% $ 703 2% $ 733 4% Counsel(E) $ 555 $ 569 3% $ 587 3% $ 599 2% $ 613 2% $ 636 4% $ 670 5% Senior Associate $ 396 $ 404 2% $ 432 7% $ 487 13% $ 525 8% $ 557 6% $ 594 7% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 296 $ 333 13% $ 358 8% $ 386 8% $ 402 4% $ 426 6% $ 471 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 252 $ 273 8% $ 294 8% $ 317 8% $ 352 11% $ 375 6% $ 423 13% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 226 $ 246 9% $ 264 7% $ 283 7% $ 307 8% $ 334 9% $ 377 13% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 200 $ 214 7% $ 231 8% $ 260 12% $ 280 8% $ 297 6% $ 332 12% 4th Year Associate $ 274 $ 293 7% $ 320 9% $ 339 6% $ 375 11% $ 405 8% $ 446 10% 3rd Year Associate $ 241 $ 254 5% $ 279 10% $ 300 8% $ 313 4% $ 342 9% $ 371 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 235 $ 242 3% $ 255 5% $ 273 7% $ 285 4% $ 311 9% $ 337 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 178 $ 188 5% $ 207 10% $ 225 9% $ 251 11% $ 274 9% $ 303 11% Overall $349 $367 5% $390 6% $415 6% $439 6% $463 6% $499 8%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Jones Day Senior Partner $ 772 $ 804 4% $ 847 5% $ 874 3% $ 900 3% $ 944 5% $ 983 4% Partner $ 674 $ 700 4% $ 725 4% $ 761 5% $ 775 2% $ 797 3% $ 831 4% Counsel $ 484 $ 500 3% $ 510 2% $ 528 3% $ 550 4% $ 561 2% $ 589 5% Senior Associate $ 500 $ 550 10% $ 628 14% $ 700 11% $ 755 8% $ 823 9% $ 879 7% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 475 $ 526 11% $ 558 6% $ 600 8% $ 635 6% $ 681 7% $ 748 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 390 $ 405 4% $ 428 6% $ 472 10% $ 532 13% $ 606 14% $ 647 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 375 $ 410 9% $ 443 8% $ 488 10% $ 522 7% $ 558 7% $ 609 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 344 $ 368 7% $ 393 7% $ 421 7% $ 460 9% $ 491 7% $ 524 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 309 $ 324 5% $ 354 9% $ 391 10% $ 424 8% $ 447 5% $ 472 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 276 $ 291 6% $ 316 8% $ 339 7% $ 377 11% $ 411 9% $ 437 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 253 $ 266 5% $ 291 10% $ 310 6% $ 334 8% $ 366 10% $ 395 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 220 $ 237 7% $ 262 10% $ 277 6% $ 293 6% $ 318 9% $ 333 5% Overall $423 $448 6% $480 7% $513 7% $546 6% $584 7% $621 6%



221 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Sidley Austin LLP Senior Partner $ 775 $ 802 3% $ 828 3% $ 844 2% $ 880 4% $ 899 2% $ 931 4% Partner(E) $ 682 $ 722 6% $ 761 5% $ 799 5% $ 826 3% $ 865 5% $ 906 5% Counsel(E) $ 627 $ 657 5% $ 670 2% $ 701 5% $ 732 4% $ 741 1% $ 759 2% Senior Associate(E) $ 417 $ 428 2% $ 480 12% $ 513 7% $ 558 9% $ 599 7% $ 679 13% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 320 $ 340 6% $ 381 12% $ 402 6% $ 454 13% $ 490 8% $ 538 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 287 $ 308 7% $ 342 11% $ 363 6% $ 400 10% $ 426 7% $ 479 12% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 264 $ 293 11% $ 308 5% $ 332 8% $ 360 8% $ 380 6% $ 414 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 235 $ 242 3% $ 258 7% $ 288 12% $ 313 9% $ 342 9% $ 371 9% 4th Year Associate $ 214 $ 218 2% $ 227 4% $ 253 12% $ 278 10% $ 301 8% $ 334 11% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 190 $ 200 5% $ 200 0% $ 223 12% $ 248 11% $ 265 7% $ 301 14% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 173 $ 178 3% $ 178 0% $ 205 15% $ 221 8% $ 230 4% $ 270 18% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 158 $ 160 2% $ 160 0% $ 189 18% $ 201 6% $ 205 2% $ 243 19% Overall $362 $379 5% $399 5% $426 7% $456 7% $478 5% $519 8%

Energy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Sidley Austin LLP Senior Partner $ 979 $ 1,016 4% $ 1,050 3% $ 1,100 5% $ 1,137 3% $ 1,161 2% $ 1,188 2% Partner $ 736 $ 764 4% $ 786 3% $ 803 2% $ 827 3% $ 850 3% $ 876 3% Counsel $ 531 $ 548 3% $ 577 5% $ 592 3% $ 619 4% $ 638 3% $ 656 3% Senior Associate $ 455 $ 481 6% $ 514 7% $ 563 10% $ 615 9% $ 671 9% $ 708 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 363 $ 394 9% $ 425 8% $ 441 4% $ 487 11% $ 544 12% $ 586 8% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 322 $ 347 8% $ 370 7% $ 383 4% $ 434 13% $ 495 14% $ 534 8% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 253 $ 287 14% $ 306 6% $ 333 9% $ 377 13% $ 430 14% $ 459 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 254 $ 281 10% $ 317 13% $ 351 11% $ 371 6% $ 392 5% $ 418 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 205 $ 217 6% $ 241 11% $ 264 9% $ 302 14% $ 345 14% $ 380 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 187 $ 200 7% $ 218 9% $ 232 6% $ 266 14% $ 303 14% $ 346 14% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 189 $ 202 7% $ 214 6% $ 240 12% $ 256 6% $ 273 7% $ 308 13% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 169 $ 174 3% $ 183 5% $ 195 6% $ 214 10% $ 240 12% $ 268 11% Overall $387 $409 6% $433 6% $458 6% $492 7% $529 7% $560 6%



267 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Senior Partner $ 659 $ 683 4% $ 712 4% $ 730 3% $ 755 3% $ 783 4% $ 813 4% Partner(E) $ 577 $ 605 5% $ 633 5% $ 660 4% $ 693 5% $ 712 3% $ 743 4% Counsel(E) $ 513 $ 539 5% $ 560 4% $ 583 4% $ 608 4% $ 634 4% $ 661 4% Senior Associate $ 268 $ 293 9% $ 309 6% $ 329 6% $ 357 9% $ 378 6% $ 408 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 183 $ 194 6% $ 208 7% $ 231 11% $ 260 13% $ 290 11% $ 316 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 183 $ 200 10% $ 213 6% $ 235 10% $ 252 7% $ 261 4% $ 278 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 166 $ 172 4% $ 192 11% $ 204 7% $ 222 8% $ 240 8% $ 256 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 139 $ 148 7% $ 163 10% $ 178 9% $ 195 9% $ 216 11% $ 235 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 127 $ 133 4% $ 148 12% $ 158 6% $ 175 11% $ 188 7% $ 199 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 109 $ 119 9% $ 131 10% $ 149 14% $ 160 7% $ 169 6% $ 177 5% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 108 $ 116 8% $ 123 6% $ 131 6% $ 139 6% $ 152 9% $ 164 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 90 $ 94 4% $ 103 10% $ 117 13% $ 128 10% $ 135 6% $ 142 5% Overall $260 $275 6% $291 6% $309 6% $329 6% $346 5% $366 6%

Environmental

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Senior Partner $ 858 $ 891 4% $ 958 7% $ 990 3% $ 1,035 4% $ 1,064 3% $ 1,053 -1% Partner $ 787 $ 818 4% $ 863 6% $ 909 5% $ 924 2% $ 976 6% $ 966 -1% Counsel $ 729 $ 750 3% $ 785 5% $ 811 3% $ 832 3% $ 864 4% $ 886 3% Senior Associate $ 471 $ 508 8% $ 550 8% $ 592 8% $ 651 10% $ 715 10% $ 764 7% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 370 $ 407 10% $ 446 10% $ 464 4% $ 516 11% $ 566 10% $ 605 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 332 $ 350 5% $ 397 13% $ 422 6% $ 459 9% $ 515 12% $ 553 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 276 $ 308 12% $ 349 13% $ 388 11% $ 422 9% $ 448 6% $ 490 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 282 $ 288 2% $ 319 11% $ 357 12% $ 372 4% $ 390 5% $ 426 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 234 $ 249 7% $ 279 12% $ 318 14% $ 338 6% $ 351 4% $ 375 7% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 225 $ 248 10% $ 275 11% $ 289 5% $ 304 5% $ 319 5% $ 341 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 184 $ 195 6% $ 221 13% $ 252 14% $ 274 9% $ 284 4% $ 307 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 160 $ 178 11% $ 197 11% $ 222 13% $ 238 7% $ 256 7% $ 282 10% Overall $409 $432 6% $470 9% $501 7% $531 6% $562 6% $587 4%



288 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Senior Partner $ 787 $ 820 4% $ 853 4% $ 881 3% $ 906 3% $ 927 2% $ 972 5% Partner(E) $ 748 $ 766 2% $ 782 2% $ 810 4% $ 825 2% $ 853 3% $ 884 4% Counsel(E) $ 621 $ 639 3% $ 666 4% $ 685 3% $ 717 5% $ 751 5% $ 796 6% Senior Associate $ 320 $ 338 6% $ 368 9% $ 402 9% $ 429 7% $ 469 9% $ 516 10% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 274 $ 302 10% $ 322 6% $ 339 5% $ 363 7% $ 392 8% $ 427 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 235 $ 255 8% $ 287 12% $ 302 5% $ 333 10% $ 353 6% $ 371 5% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 200 $ 217 8% $ 238 10% $ 255 7% $ 280 10% $ 314 12% $ 338 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 173 $ 195 12% $ 205 5% $ 232 13% $ 253 9% $ 283 12% $ 308 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 167 $ 188 12% $ 205 9% $ 221 7% $ 234 6% $ 249 7% $ 283 14% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 153 $ 162 6% $ 179 10% $ 193 8% $ 208 8% $ 222 6% $ 236 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 122 $ 136 11% $ 143 5% $ 154 8% $ 173 13% $ 195 12% $ 211 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 112 $ 121 8% $ 132 9% $ 146 10% $ 159 9% $ 174 9% $ 190 9% Overall $326 $345 6% $365 6% $385 5% $407 6% $432 6% $461 7%

Energy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Senior Partner $ 714 $ 773 8% $ 790 2% $ 817 3% $ 842 3% $ 893 6% $ 903 1% Partner(E) $ 655 $ 690 5% $ 712 3% $ 736 3% $ 773 5% $ 804 4% $ 836 4% Counsel $ 596 $ 607 2% $ 627 3% $ 641 2% $ 688 7% $ 700 2% $ 769 10% Senior Associate $ 421 $ 444 5% $ 493 11% $ 550 11% $ 585 6% $ 631 8% $ 687 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 337 $ 381 13% $ 409 7% $ 444 8% $ 484 9% $ 505 4% $ 556 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 292 $ 305 4% $ 335 10% $ 371 11% $ 402 8% $ 449 12% $ 512 14% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 264 $ 287 9% $ 308 7% $ 343 11% $ 362 6% $ 396 9% $ 445 13% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 228 $ 247 8% $ 277 12% $ 298 8% $ 317 6% $ 356 12% $ 387 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 210 $ 229 9% $ 246 7% $ 267 9% $ 283 6% $ 313 11% $ 337 8% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 182 $ 205 12% $ 216 5% $ 240 11% $ 265 10% $ 282 6% $ 300 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 154 $ 166 8% $ 185 11% $ 208 12% $ 234 13% $ 251 7% $ 270 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 147 $ 151 3% $ 160 6% $ 180 12% $ 199 11% $ 221 11% $ 248 12% Overall $350 $374 7% $396 6% $425 7% $453 7% $483 7% $521 8%



330 | P a g e


Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Senior Partner $ 994 $ 1,014 2% $ 1,060 5% $ 1,125 6% $ 1,165 4% $ 1,188 2% $ 1,224 3% Partner $ 883 $ 914 4% $ 958 5% $ 986 3% $ 1,028 4% $ 1,073 4% $ 1,115 4% Counsel $ 729 $ 752 3% $ 778 3% $ 811 4% $ 830 2% $ 847 2% $ 868 2% Senior Associate $ 552 $ 607 10% $ 661 9% $ 754 14% $ 786 4% $ 842 7% $ 907 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 481 $ 496 3% $ 547 10% $ 591 8% $ 661 12% $ 697 5% $ 750 8% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 429 $ 462 8% $ 487 5% $ 523 7% $ 567 9% $ 613 8% $ 653 6% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 391 $ 412 5% $ 438 7% $ 478 9% $ 528 10% $ 564 7% $ 601 6% 5th Year Associate $ 356 $ 362 2% $ 399 10% $ 440 10% $ 470 7% $ 491 4% $ 541 10% 4th Year Associate $ 324 $ 322 0% $ 363 13% $ 400 10% $ 423 6% $ 437 3% $ 492 13% 3rd Year Associate $ 285 $ 287 1% $ 327 14% $ 364 12% $ 368 1% $ 398 8% $ 438 10% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 256 $ 258 1% $ 288 11% $ 335 17% $ 331 -1% $ 354 7% $ 385 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 231 $ 238 3% $ 265 11% $ 302 14% $ 305 1% $ 318 5% $ 355 11% Overall $493 $510 4% $548 7% $592 8% $622 5% $652 5% $694 6%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Senior Partner $ 786 $ 824 5% $ 842 2% $ 864 3% $ 904 5% $ 934 3% $ 957 2% Partner(E) $ 709 $ 742 5% $ 750 1% $ 761 1% $ 787 3% $ 813 3% $ 848 4% Counsel(E) $ 613 $ 642 5% $ 663 3% $ 684 3% $ 716 5% $ 739 3% $ 775 5% Senior Associate(E) $ 423 $ 480 14% $ 530 10% $ 589 11% $ 639 9% $ 680 6% $ 748 10% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 353 $ 392 11% $ 437 11% $ 467 7% $ 516 11% $ 576 12% $ 632 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 359 $ 384 7% $ 421 10% $ 458 9% $ 483 5% $ 530 10% $ 566 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 328 $ 335 2% $ 377 12% $ 414 10% $ 453 9% $ 482 6% $ 520 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 285 $ 303 6% $ 335 10% $ 359 7% $ 393 9% $ 443 13% $ 468 5% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 266 $ 301 13% $ 318 6% $ 352 10% $ 379 8% $ 399 5% $ 425 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 237 $ 247 4% $ 278 12% $ 296 7% $ 330 11% $ 347 5% $ 371 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 218 $ 234 7% $ 251 8% $ 266 6% $ 286 7% $ 306 7% $ 327 7% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 176 $ 197 12% $ 212 8% $ 225 6% $ 253 12% $ 275 9% $ 290 5% Overall $396 $423 7% $451 7% $478 6% $512 7% $544 6% $577 6%



358 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Ropes & Gray LLP Senior Partner $ 1,103 $ 1,155 5% $ 1,185 3% $ 1,210 2% $ 1,222 1% $ 1,280 5% $ 1,331 4% Partner(E) $ 952 $ 973 2% $ 1,011 4% $ 1,041 3% $ 1,084 4% $ 1,113 3% $ 1,161 4% Counsel(E) $ 828 $ 857 4% $ 907 6% $ 952 5% $ 979 3% $ 1,024 5% $ 1,078 5% Senior Associate(E) $ 729 $ 771 6% $ 826 7% $ 866 5% $ 901 4% $ 932 4% $ 981 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 466 $ 484 4% $ 545 13% $ 596 9% $ 648 9% $ 730 13% $ 794 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 487 $ 543 12% $ 569 5% $ 590 4% $ 642 9% $ 672 5% $ 731 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 408 $ 452 11% $ 483 7% $ 513 6% $ 571 11% $ 598 5% $ 629 5% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 346 $ 393 14% $ 418 6% $ 452 8% $ 497 10% $ 526 6% $ 561 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 323 $ 360 11% $ 385 7% $ 406 6% $ 432 6% $ 473 10% $ 503 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 269 $ 300 12% $ 317 6% $ 335 6% $ 376 12% $ 417 11% $ 463 11% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 248 $ 260 5% $ 290 11% $ 326 12% $ 360 11% $ 383 6% $ 403 5% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 224 $ 240 7% $ 260 8% $ 283 9% $ 308 9% $ 333 8% $ 351 5% Overall $532 $566 6% $600 6% $631 5% $668 6% $707 6% $749 6%

Equities

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Ropes & Gray LLP Senior Partner $ 964 $ 1,015 5% $ 1,056 4% $ 1,099 4% $ 1,147 4% $ 1,199 4% $ 1,250 4% Partner $ 899 $ 921 2% $ 952 3% $ 981 3% $ 1,003 2% $ 1,029 3% $ 1,057 3% Counsel $ 660 $ 685 4% $ 704 3% $ 724 3% $ 740 2% $ 775 5% $ 800 3% Senior Associate $ 441 $ 489 11% $ 533 9% $ 583 9% $ 626 7% $ 681 9% $ 740 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 381 $ 391 3% $ 425 9% $ 477 12% $ 512 7% $ 551 8% $ 584 6% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 318 $ 334 5% $ 359 7% $ 397 11% $ 446 12% $ 496 11% $ 540 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 278 $ 301 8% $ 334 11% $ 360 8% $ 392 9% $ 431 10% $ 464 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 255 $ 277 8% $ 292 5% $ 314 8% $ 349 11% $ 393 12% $ 413 5% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 245 $ 275 12% $ 290 5% $ 306 6% $ 321 5% $ 361 12% $ 381 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 213 $ 226 6% $ 252 12% $ 276 9% $ 295 7% $ 318 8% $ 343 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 204 $ 215 5% $ 232 8% $ 248 7% $ 263 6% $ 283 8% $ 306 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 170 $ 190 12% $ 206 8% $ 216 5% $ 242 12% $ 260 8% $ 286 10% Overall $419 $443 6% $469 6% $498 6% $528 6% $565 7% $597 6%



461 | P a g e


Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Senior Partner $ 1,078 $ 1,123 4% $ 1,150 2% $ 1,189 3% $ 1,244 5% $ 1,305 5% $ 1,352 4% Partner $ 863 $ 887 3% $ 910 3% $ 938 3% $ 993 6% $ 1,036 4% $ 1,058 2% Counsel $ 859 $ 898 5% $ 926 3% $ 946 2% $ 980 4% $ 1,024 4% $ 1,064 4% Senior Associate $ 606 $ 682 12% $ 722 6% $ 805 11% $ 847 5% $ 900 6% $ 953 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 522 $ 533 2% $ 585 10% $ 624 7% $ 694 11% $ 737 6% $ 801 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 430 $ 464 8% $ 515 11% $ 568 10% $ 624 10% $ 670 7% $ 731 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 394 $ 437 11% $ 468 7% $ 499 6% $ 562 13% $ 610 9% $ 669 10% 5th Year Associate $ 351 $ 389 11% $ 426 10% $ 459 8% $ 517 13% $ 531 3% $ 602 13% 4th Year Associate $ 316 $ 350 11% $ 388 11% $ 418 8% $ 475 14% $ 488 3% $ 548 12% 3rd Year Associate $ 278 $ 315 13% $ 357 13% $ 376 5% $ 423 13% $ 434 3% $ 504 16% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 250 $ 287 15% $ 325 13% $ 338 4% $ 368 9% $ 391 6% $ 454 16% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 228 $ 249 10% $ 299 20% $ 294 -1% $ 320 9% $ 352 10% $ 404 15% Overall $515 $551 7% $589 7% $621 5% $671 8% $706 5% $762 8%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Senior Partner $ 900 $ 921 2% $ 962 4% $ 990 3% $ 1,031 4% $ 1,053 2% $ 1,080 2% Partner(E) $ 874 $ 907 4% $ 948 5% $ 980 3% $ 1,020 4% $ 1,057 4% $ 1,082 2% Counsel $ 831 $ 875 5% $ 916 5% $ 950 4% $ 990 4% $ 1,040 5% $ 1,062 2% Senior Associate(E) $ 629 $ 702 12% $ 739 5% $ 801 8% $ 891 11% $ 946 6% $ 1,019 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 537 $ 552 3% $ 591 7% $ 626 6% $ 675 8% $ 724 7% $ 783 8% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 460 $ 485 5% $ 519 7% $ 564 9% $ 596 6% $ 637 7% $ 705 11% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 385 $ 393 2% $ 434 10% $ 479 10% $ 538 12% $ 580 8% $ 627 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 316 $ 341 8% $ 384 13% $ 425 11% $ 466 10% $ 505 8% $ 565 12% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 315 $ 339 7% $ 358 6% $ 379 6% $ 411 8% $ 449 9% $ 497 11% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 272 $ 295 9% $ 322 9% $ 353 10% $ 372 5% $ 400 8% $ 452 13% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 242 $ 249 3% $ 273 9% $ 306 12% $ 330 8% $ 348 5% $ 376 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 218 $ 219 1% $ 244 11% $ 272 11% $ 288 6% $ 320 11% $ 366 14% Overall $498 $523 5% $557 7% $594 7% $634 7% $671 6% $718 7%



498 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Senior Partner $ 1,154 $ 1,215 5% $ 1,242 2% $ 1,278 3% $ 1,330 4% $ 1,363 2% $ 1,406 3% Partner(E) $ 984 $ 1,034 5% $ 1,079 4% $ 1,116 3% $ 1,142 2% $ 1,200 5% $ 1,251 4% Counsel(E) $ 907 $ 934 3% $ 958 3% $ 1,005 5% $ 1,041 4% $ 1,080 4% $ 1,126 4% Senior Associate(E) $ 655 $ 692 6% $ 754 9% $ 815 8% $ 916 12% $ 983 7% $ 1,036 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 515 $ 589 14% $ 624 6% $ 682 9% $ 767 12% $ 814 6% $ 868 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 498 $ 538 8% $ 571 6% $ 615 8% $ 675 10% $ 708 5% $ 755 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 435 $ 471 8% $ 522 11% $ 566 8% $ 614 9% $ 637 4% $ 679 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 392 $ 409 4% $ 457 12% $ 496 9% $ 542 9% $ 573 6% $ 610 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 371 $ 400 8% $ 441 10% $ 468 6% $ 492 5% $ 510 4% $ 550 8% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 326 $ 346 6% $ 378 9% $ 405 7% $ 438 8% $ 469 7% $ 499 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 293 $ 305 4% $ 336 10% $ 378 13% $ 398 5% $ 413 4% $ 435 5% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 267 $ 283 6% $ 301 6% $ 327 9% $ 347 6% $ 368 6% $ 396 8% Overall $566 $601 6% $639 6% $679 6% $725 7% $760 5% $801 5%

Environmental

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Senior Partner $ 1,186 $ 1,223 3% $ 1,270 4% $ 1,312 3% $ 1,330 1% $ 1,397 5% $ 1,465 5% Partner(E) $ 1,044 $ 1,075 3% $ 1,107 3% $ 1,130 2% $ 1,150 2% $ 1,204 5% $ 1,251 4% Counsel $ 789 $ 835 6% $ 880 5% $ 925 5% $ 948 2% $ 987 4% $ 1,012 2% Senior Associate $ 578 $ 657 14% $ 712 8% $ 790 11% $ 865 9% $ 951 10% $ 1,045 10% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 494 $ 510 3% $ 569 11% $ 633 11% $ 720 14% $ 770 7% $ 809 5% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 454 $ 482 6% $ 534 11% $ 563 5% $ 616 9% $ 700 14% $ 743 6% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 395 $ 425 8% $ 456 7% $ 496 9% $ 548 11% $ 609 11% $ 663 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 376 $ 387 3% $ 431 11% $ 469 9% $ 523 12% $ 561 7% $ 609 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 350 $ 373 7% $ 401 8% $ 433 8% $ 460 6% $ 510 11% $ 538 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 314 $ 327 4% $ 362 11% $ 387 7% $ 425 10% $ 464 9% $ 495 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 286 $ 290 2% $ 322 11% $ 364 13% $ 389 7% $ 418 8% $ 451 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 239 $ 258 8% $ 290 12% $ 319 10% $ 344 8% $ 380 11% $ 407 7% Overall $542 $570 5% $611 7% $652 7% $693 6% $746 8% $791 6%



611 | P a g e

Electronic Discovery

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Paul Hastings LLP Senior Partner(E) $ 959 $ 1,000 4% $ 1,050 5% $ 1,076 2% $ 1,130 5% $ 1,145 1% $ 1,194 4% Partner $ 840 $ 860 2% $ 900 5% $ 943 5% $ 1,000 6% $ 1,022 2% $ 1,053 3% Counsel(E) $ 773 $ 765 -1% $ 819 7% $ 820 0% $ 880 7% $ 940 7% $ 947 1% Senior Associate $ 711 $ 666 -6% $ 729 10% $ 738 1% $ 810 10% $ 827 2% $ 862 4% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 557 $ 557 0% $ 583 5% $ 585 0% $ 655 12% $ 641 -2% $ 714 11% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 512 $ 513 0% $ 525 2% $ 538 2% $ 596 11% $ 577 -3% $ 650 13% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 445 $ 472 6% $ 457 -3% $ 479 5% $ 531 11% $ 513 -3% $ 591 15% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 392 $ 420 7% $ 397 -5% $ 426 7% $ 483 13% $ 446 -8% $ 526 18% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 349 $ 369 6% $ 362 -2% $ 379 5% $ 430 13% $ 397 -8% $ 484 22% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 317 $ 325 2% $ 322 -1% $ 349 8% $ 396 13% $ 346 -13% $ 431 25% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 286 $ 293 2% $ 280 -4% $ 317 13% $ 360 13% $ 315 -13% $ 392 25% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 260 $ 260 0% $ 255 -2% $ 282 11% $ 317 12% $ 289 -9% $ 361 25% Overall $533 $541 2% $557 3% $578 4% $632 9% $622 -2% $684 10%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Paul Hastings LLP Senior Partner $ 995 $ 1,015 2% $ 1,023 1% $ 1,050 3% $ 1,097 4% $ 1,131 3% $ 1,177 4% Partner $ 922 $ 963 4% $ 1,014 5% $ 1,038 2% $ 1,090 5% $ 1,117 2% $ 1,145 2% Counsel(E) $ 832 $ 870 5% $ 901 4% $ 924 3% $ 955 3% $ 1,005 5% $ 1,031 2% Senior Associate(E) $ 576 $ 623 8% $ 674 8% $ 758 12% $ 830 10% $ 915 10% $ 963 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 501 $ 527 5% $ 594 13% $ 638 7% $ 694 9% $ 733 6% $ 785 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 405 $ 440 9% $ 491 12% $ 529 8% $ 586 11% $ 652 11% $ 712 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 365 $ 413 13% $ 435 5% $ 489 12% $ 549 12% $ 580 6% $ 615 6% 5th Year Associate $ 325 $ 376 16% $ 396 5% $ 440 11% $ 489 11% $ 505 3% $ 565 12% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 299 $ 335 12% $ 356 6% $ 383 8% $ 440 15% $ 465 6% $ 498 7% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 269 $ 298 11% $ 313 5% $ 352 12% $ 405 15% $ 423 4% $ 458 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 242 $ 268 11% $ 276 3% $ 317 15% $ 352 11% $ 380 8% $ 421 11% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 220 $ 236 7% $ 248 5% $ 285 15% $ 310 9% $ 335 8% $ 371 11% Overall $496 $530 7% $560 6% $600 7% $650 8% $687 6% $728 6%



675 | P a g e


Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Senior Partner $ 887 $ 927 4% $ 962 4% $ 988 3% $ 1,040 5% $ 1,065 2% $ 1,092 2% Partner $ 695 $ 710 2% $ 735 4% $ 754 3% $ 786 4% $ 815 4% $ 842 3% Counsel $ 596 $ 626 5% $ 660 5% $ 695 5% $ 705 1% $ 723 2% $ 739 2% Senior Associate $ 463 $ 500 8% $ 534 7% $ 563 5% $ 628 12% $ 683 9% $ 745 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 341 $ 367 8% $ 407 11% $ 456 12% $ 507 11% $ 560 10% $ 617 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 310 $ 346 11% $ 375 8% $ 419 12% $ 465 11% $ 504 8% $ 549 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 309 $ 339 10% $ 367 8% $ 387 5% $ 427 10% $ 453 6% $ 505 11% 5th Year Associate $ 284 $ 299 5% $ 334 12% $ 348 4% $ 371 7% $ 394 6% $ 449 14% 4th Year Associate $ 256 $ 269 5% $ 304 13% $ 306 1% $ 323 5% $ 359 11% $ 395 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 233 $ 247 6% $ 270 9% $ 267 -1% $ 297 12% $ 327 10% $ 356 9% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 212 $ 222 5% $ 238 7% $ 243 2% $ 274 13% $ 284 4% $ 324 14% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 186 $ 198 6% $ 219 11% $ 221 1% $ 249 13% $ 250 0% $ 298 19% Overall $398 $421 6% $450 7% $471 4% $506 8% $535 6% $576 8%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Senior Partner $ 774 $ 808 4% $ 848 5% $ 883 4% $ 925 5% $ 957 3% $ 977 2% Partner(E) $ 677 $ 698 3% $ 728 4% $ 765 5% $ 812 6% $ 835 3% $ 862 3% Counsel $ 586 $ 614 5% $ 636 4% $ 650 2% $ 682 5% $ 696 2% $ 730 5% Senior Associate $ 534 $ 565 6% $ 553 -2% $ 578 5% $ 601 4% $ 627 4% $ 657 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 437 $ 447 2% $ 443 -1% $ 474 7% $ 497 5% $ 491 -1% $ 526 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 398 $ 403 1% $ 407 1% $ 422 3% $ 438 4% $ 427 -2% $ 484 13% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 350 $ 362 4% $ 375 3% $ 384 2% $ 385 0% $ 393 2% $ 426 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 318 $ 322 1% $ 337 5% $ 345 2% $ 347 0% $ 346 0% $ 383 11% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 283 $ 284 0% $ 293 3% $ 318 8% $ 302 -5% $ 308 2% $ 349 13% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 261 $ 255 -2% $ 264 3% $ 292 11% $ 268 -8% $ 280 4% $ 317 13% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 227 $ 225 -1% $ 238 6% $ 263 11% $ 244 -7% $ 255 4% $ 276 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 200 $ 198 -1% $ 219 11% $ 229 5% $ 215 -6% $ 229 7% $ 249 8% Overall $420 $432 3% $445 3% $467 5% $476 2% $487 2% $520 7%



780 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Goodwin Procter LLP Senior Partner $ 962 $ 1,010 5% $ 1,047 4% $ 1,094 4% $ 1,120 2% $ 1,161 4% $ 1,214 4% Partner(E) $ 847 $ 899 6% $ 942 5% $ 973 3% $ 1,030 6% $ 1,057 3% $ 1,080 2% Counsel(E) $ 791 $ 813 3% $ 841 3% $ 882 5% $ 917 4% $ 972 6% $ 994 2% Senior Associate $ 594 $ 634 7% $ 681 7% $ 734 8% $ 784 7% $ 858 10% $ 933 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 451 $ 491 9% $ 552 12% $ 588 7% $ 656 12% $ 710 8% $ 756 6% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 428 $ 452 6% $ 485 7% $ 511 5% $ 577 13% $ 618 7% $ 650 5% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 356 $ 398 12% $ 422 6% $ 450 7% $ 514 14% $ 538 5% $ 591 10% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 340 $ 358 5% $ 385 7% $ 405 5% $ 431 6% $ 468 8% $ 520 11% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 278 $ 293 5% $ 315 8% $ 354 12% $ 375 6% $ 412 10% $ 448 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 239 $ 250 4% $ 280 12% $ 298 6% $ 325 9% $ 358 10% $ 386 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 192 $ 213 11% $ 234 10% $ 257 10% $ 278 8% $ 312 12% $ 339 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 202 $ 210 4% $ 222 6% $ 248 12% $ 265 7% $ 287 8% $ 314 10% Overall $473 $502 6% $534 6% $566 6% $606 7% $646 7% $685 6%

Environmental

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Goodwin Procter LLP Senior Partner $ 604 $ 627 4% $ 655 4% $ 673 3% $ 699 4% $ 716 2% $ 740 3% Partner(E) $ 564 $ 577 2% $ 602 4% $ 619 3% $ 636 3% $ 651 2% $ 679 4% Counsel(E) $ 492 $ 505 3% $ 518 2% $ 531 3% $ 549 3% $ 566 3% $ 579 2% Senior Associate $ 399 $ 426 7% $ 448 5% $ 485 8% $ 528 9% $ 571 8% $ 628 10% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 298 $ 304 2% $ 343 13% $ 380 11% $ 418 10% $ 442 6% $ 497 13% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 272 $ 290 7% $ 316 9% $ 343 9% $ 363 6% $ 385 6% $ 438 14% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 224 $ 243 9% $ 268 10% $ 294 10% $ 323 10% $ 346 7% $ 378 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 218 $ 236 8% $ 250 6% $ 271 8% $ 276 2% $ 312 13% $ 330 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 185 $ 204 10% $ 217 7% $ 238 9% $ 259 9% $ 277 7% $ 303 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 169 $ 175 4% $ 191 9% $ 214 12% $ 244 14% $ 255 5% $ 273 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 153 $ 171 12% $ 195 14% $ 210 8% $ 224 7% $ 235 5% $ 249 6% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 135 $ 149 10% $ 166 11% $ 184 11% $ 200 9% $ 214 7% $ 243 14% Overall $309 $326 5% $347 7% $370 7% $393 6% $414 5% $445 7%



971 | P a g e


Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Alston & Bird LLP Senior Partner $ 745 $ 749 1% $ 803 7% $ 807 0% $ 842 4% $ 887 5% $ 911 3% Partner $ 671 $ 687 2% $ 711 3% $ 740 4% $ 766 3% $ 785 2% $ 820 4% Counsel $ 641 $ 663 3% $ 678 2% $ 707 4% $ 738 4% $ 766 4% $ 785 2% Senior Associate $ 393 $ 440 12% $ 481 9% $ 516 7% $ 547 6% $ 592 8% $ 631 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 340 $ 360 6% $ 385 7% $ 409 6% $ 433 6% $ 480 11% $ 512 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 304 $ 321 5% $ 350 9% $ 372 6% $ 390 5% $ 427 10% $ 450 5% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 267 $ 289 8% $ 315 9% $ 335 6% $ 355 6% $ 393 11% $ 431 10% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 236 $ 254 8% $ 290 14% $ 308 6% $ 331 7% $ 361 9% $ 389 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 213 $ 231 9% $ 252 9% $ 268 6% $ 303 13% $ 322 6% $ 350 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 188 $ 204 8% $ 215 5% $ 238 11% $ 254 6% $ 286 13% $ 307 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 156 $ 170 9% $ 180 6% $ 202 12% $ 218 8% $ 249 14% $ 262 5% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 150 $ 154 3% $ 163 5% $ 182 12% $ 203 11% $ 219 8% $ 233 7% Overall $359 $377 5% $402 7% $424 5% $448 6% $481 7% $507 5%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Alston & Bird LLP Senior Partner $ 715 $ 743 4% $ 769 3% $ 802 4% $ 825 3% $ 855 4% $ 897 5% Partner $ 551 $ 569 3% $ 581 2% $ 608 5% $ 622 2% $ 636 2% $ 659 4% Counsel(E) $ 491 $ 502 2% $ 533 6% $ 565 6% $ 595 5% $ 617 4% $ 648 5% Senior Associate $ 396 $ 425 7% $ 475 12% $ 511 8% $ 556 9% $ 586 5% $ 624 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 318 $ 340 7% $ 389 14% $ 423 9% $ 445 5% $ 479 8% $ 523 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 275 $ 310 12% $ 354 14% $ 377 6% $ 405 8% $ 422 4% $ 460 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 258 $ 285 11% $ 312 9% $ 335 8% $ 360 8% $ 380 5% $ 404 6% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 235 $ 248 5% $ 265 7% $ 286 8% $ 314 10% $ 338 8% $ 367 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 195 $ 216 10% $ 247 14% $ 259 5% $ 285 10% $ 311 9% $ 341 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 174 $ 194 12% $ 215 11% $ 233 9% $ 260 11% $ 271 4% $ 295 9% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 153 $ 171 11% $ 189 11% $ 205 8% $ 228 12% $ 249 9% $ 267 7% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 149 $ 165 10% $ 180 10% $ 194 8% $ 210 8% $ 229 9% $ 248 8% Overall $326 $347 7% $376 8% $400 6% $425 6% $448 5% $478 7%



985 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate O'Melveny & Myers LLP Senior Partner $ 994 $ 1,031 4% $ 1,054 2% $ 1,098 4% $ 1,125 2% $ 1,161 3% $ 1,188 2% Partner(E) $ 876 $ 920 5% $ 957 4% $ 998 4% $ 1,024 3% $ 1,068 4% $ 1,114 4% Counsel(E) $ 823 $ 844 3% $ 882 5% $ 899 2% $ 921 2% $ 940 2% $ 980 4% Senior Associate(E) $ 522 $ 572 9% $ 623 9% $ 696 12% $ 751 8% $ 837 11% $ 897 7% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 456 $ 473 4% $ 509 8% $ 569 12% $ 628 10% $ 655 4% $ 705 8% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 391 $ 446 14% $ 483 8% $ 534 11% $ 565 6% $ 603 7% $ 645 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 360 $ 377 5% $ 424 12% $ 469 11% $ 503 7% $ 524 4% $ 566 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 312 $ 321 3% $ 360 12% $ 401 11% $ 447 12% $ 477 7% $ 510 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 284 $ 299 5% $ 333 11% $ 374 12% $ 398 7% $ 420 5% $ 458 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 245 $ 261 6% $ 292 12% $ 322 10% $ 358 11% $ 378 6% $ 402 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 226 $ 236 4% $ 263 11% $ 283 8% $ 310 9% $ 333 7% $ 351 5% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 193 $ 212 10% $ 236 12% $ 255 8% $ 287 12% $ 306 7% $ 327 7% Overall $474 $499 5% $535 7% $575 8% $610 6% $642 5% $679 6%

Finance

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate O'Melveny & Myers LLP Senior Partner $ 878 $ 919 5% $ 963 5% $ 999 4% $ 1,020 2% $ 1,068 5% $ 1,110 4% Partner $ 863 $ 890 3% $ 911 2% $ 933 2% $ 975 4% $ 995 2% $ 1,029 3% Counsel $ 686 $ 707 3% $ 741 5% $ 770 4% $ 791 3% $ 815 3% $ 850 4% Senior Associate(E) $ 486 $ 505 4% $ 570 13% $ 636 11% $ 690 9% $ 741 7% $ 800 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 381 $ 415 9% $ 457 10% $ 477 4% $ 520 9% $ 574 10% $ 630 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 363 $ 377 4% $ 416 10% $ 445 7% $ 480 8% $ 517 8% $ 562 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 297 $ 331 12% $ 370 12% $ 406 10% $ 439 8% $ 475 8% $ 521 10% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 299 $ 324 8% $ 351 9% $ 379 8% $ 410 8% $ 428 4% $ 462 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 254 $ 282 11% $ 299 6% $ 338 13% $ 369 9% $ 385 4% $ 420 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 213 $ 228 7% $ 249 9% $ 277 11% $ 306 10% $ 343 12% $ 371 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 198 $ 218 10% $ 236 8% $ 257 9% $ 280 9% $ 305 9% $ 321 5% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 165 $ 182 10% $ 195 7% $ 216 10% $ 238 10% $ 268 13% $ 283 5% Overall $423 $448 6% $480 7% $511 6% $543 6% $576 6% $613 6%



1042 | P a g e

Creditor's Rights

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Foley & Lardner LLP Senior Partner $ 675 $ 685 1% $ 703 3% $ 725 3% $ 750 3% $ 767 2% $ 785 2% Partner(E) $ 560 $ 585 4% $ 616 5% $ 637 3% $ 664 4% $ 690 4% $ 707 2% Counsel(E) $ 535 $ 542 1% $ 563 4% $ 587 4% $ 614 5% $ 628 2% $ 655 4% Senior Associate $ 440 $ 460 5% $ 490 7% $ 535 9% $ 567 6% $ 602 6% $ 658 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 344 $ 364 6% $ 388 7% $ 428 10% $ 459 7% $ 488 6% $ 557 14% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 288 $ 324 13% $ 342 5% $ 362 6% $ 400 10% $ 444 11% $ 490 10% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 251 $ 282 12% $ 295 5% $ 331 12% $ 368 11% $ 386 5% $ 436 13% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 257 $ 271 5% $ 296 9% $ 322 9% $ 338 5% $ 351 4% $ 388 10% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 215 $ 231 8% $ 260 13% $ 281 8% $ 304 9% $ 323 6% $ 353 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 186 $ 206 10% $ 217 5% $ 244 13% $ 265 9% $ 288 9% $ 318 10% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 163 $ 171 5% $ 191 12% $ 215 13% $ 236 10% $ 262 11% $ 289 10% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 146 $ 162 11% $ 173 7% $ 189 9% $ 207 10% $ 228 10% $ 240 5% Overall $338 $357 6% $378 6% $405 7% $431 7% $455 5% $490 8%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Foley & Lardner LLP Senior Partner(E) $ 546 $ 571 5% $ 593 4% $ 608 2% $ 622 2% $ 627 1% $ 663 6% Partner $ 467 $ 486 4% $ 509 5% $ 530 4% $ 550 4% $ 570 4% $ 597 5% Counsel(E) $ 446 $ 467 5% $ 488 5% $ 513 5% $ 535 4% $ 568 6% $ 596 5% Senior Associate $ 412 $ 425 3% $ 447 5% $ 476 6% $ 509 7% $ 554 9% $ 582 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 328 $ 325 -1% $ 366 13% $ 390 6% $ 412 6% $ 449 9% $ 472 5% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 266 $ 283 6% $ 310 9% $ 329 6% $ 359 9% $ 400 11% $ 433 8% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 217 $ 242 11% $ 263 9% $ 286 9% $ 316 10% $ 348 10% $ 373 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 194 $ 208 7% $ 223 7% $ 246 10% $ 275 12% $ 306 11% $ 325 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 177 $ 194 9% $ 206 6% $ 228 10% $ 253 11% $ 269 7% $ 296 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 161 $ 177 10% $ 197 11% $ 220 11% $ 230 5% $ 240 4% $ 272 14% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 144 $ 152 5% $ 172 13% $ 183 7% $ 200 9% $ 218 9% $ 239 10% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 135 $ 138 3% $ 151 9% $ 162 7% $ 182 12% $ 190 4% $ 211 11% Overall $291 $306 5% $327 7% $347 6% $370 7% $395 7% $422 7%



1150 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Senior Partner $ 566 $ 592 4% $ 605 2% $ 630 4% $ 652 3% $ 668 2% $ 693 4% Partner(E) $ 494 $ 490 -1% $ 516 5% $ 544 5% $ 541 0% $ 564 4% $ 599 6% Counsel(E) $ 437 $ 450 3% $ 469 4% $ 486 4% $ 501 3% $ 517 3% $ 539 4% Senior Associate $ 384 $ 409 6% $ 408 0% $ 442 8% $ 456 3% $ 476 4% $ 491 3% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 311 $ 328 5% $ 331 1% $ 354 7% $ 361 2% $ 364 1% $ 372 2% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 280 $ 298 6% $ 294 -1% $ 308 5% $ 321 4% $ 335 4% $ 334 0% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 249 $ 263 5% $ 265 1% $ 280 6% $ 296 5% $ 308 4% $ 294 -5% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 217 $ 231 6% $ 236 2% $ 252 7% $ 272 8% $ 271 0% $ 265 -2% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 191 $ 213 11% $ 217 2% $ 229 6% $ 247 8% $ 247 0% $ 230 -7% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 168 $ 193 15% $ 197 2% $ 204 4% $ 228 11% $ 225 -1% $ 203 -10% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 155 $ 170 10% $ 180 5% $ 182 1% $ 207 14% $ 204 -1% $ 182 -11% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 134 $ 151 13% $ 158 4% $ 162 2% $ 180 11% $ 184 2% $ 168 -9% Overall $299 $316 6% $323 2% $339 5% $355 5% $364 2% $364 0%

Entertainment

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Senior Partner $ 690 $ 704 2% $ 725 3% $ 744 3% $ 775 4% $ 791 2% $ 815 3% Partner(E) $ 626 $ 641 2% $ 662 3% $ 687 4% $ 718 5% $ 740 3% $ 763 3% Counsel $ 550 $ 565 3% $ 586 4% $ 616 5% $ 646 5% $ 674 4% $ 696 3% Senior Associate $ 293 $ 309 5% $ 345 12% $ 385 12% $ 412 7% $ 435 6% $ 457 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 232 $ 250 8% $ 270 8% $ 293 9% $ 317 8% $ 337 6% $ 379 12% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 207 $ 219 6% $ 238 9% $ 262 10% $ 281 7% $ 300 7% $ 321 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 180 $ 197 9% $ 216 10% $ 244 13% $ 258 6% $ 270 5% $ 294 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 152 $ 169 11% $ 184 9% $ 210 14% $ 225 7% $ 248 11% $ 269 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 139 $ 158 14% $ 168 6% $ 185 11% $ 207 12% $ 216 5% $ 235 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 128 $ 141 10% $ 154 9% $ 168 9% $ 182 8% $ 192 6% $ 205 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 115 $ 128 11% $ 147 14% $ 155 5% $ 162 5% $ 169 5% $ 185 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 100 $ 114 14% $ 121 6% $ 132 9% $ 140 6% $ 151 8% $ 163 8% Overall $284 $300 5% $318 6% $340 7% $360 6% $377 5% $398 6%



1243 | P a g e

Discrimination and Harassment

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Littler Mendelson P.C. Senior Partner(E) $ 438 $ 489 12% $ 487 0% $ 540 11% $ 603 12% $ 615 2% $ 689 12% Partner $ 388 $ 437 13% $ 451 3% $ 487 8% $ 548 13% $ 544 -1% $ 620 14% Counsel $ 346 $ 386 12% $ 399 3% $ 438 10% $ 490 12% $ 504 3% $ 559 11% Senior Associate $ 321 $ 351 10% $ 370 5% $ 395 7% $ 433 10% $ 467 8% $ 495 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 241 $ 258 7% $ 284 10% $ 313 10% $ 343 10% $ 365 6% $ 387 6% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 226 $ 233 3% $ 257 10% $ 278 8% $ 312 12% $ 336 8% $ 358 6% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 196 $ 215 10% $ 236 10% $ 253 7% $ 275 9% $ 306 11% $ 335 10% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 184 $ 200 9% $ 218 9% $ 230 6% $ 253 10% $ 281 11% $ 303 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 164 $ 179 10% $ 191 6% $ 210 10% $ 233 11% $ 250 8% $ 264 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 159 $ 163 2% $ 177 9% $ 187 5% $ 212 13% $ 230 9% $ 245 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 134 $ 141 5% $ 158 12% $ 168 6% $ 188 12% $ 203 8% $ 219 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 118 $ 124 5% $ 136 10% $ 151 11% $ 166 10% $ 178 8% $ 188 5% Overall $243 $265 9% $280 6% $304 9% $338 11% $357 6% $388 9%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Littler Mendelson P.C. Senior Partner $ 625 $ 648 4% $ 679 5% $ 700 3% $ 724 3% $ 756 4% $ 778 3% Partner(E) $ 571 $ 593 4% $ 613 3% $ 630 3% $ 666 6% $ 695 4% $ 725 4% Counsel(E) $ 550 $ 573 4% $ 593 4% $ 613 3% $ 626 2% $ 640 2% $ 667 4% Senior Associate $ 216 $ 238 10% $ 251 6% $ 275 9% $ 300 9% $ 321 7% $ 337 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 169 $ 179 6% $ 199 11% $ 220 11% $ 243 10% $ 254 5% $ 279 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 151 $ 169 12% $ 180 6% $ 203 13% $ 224 10% $ 234 5% $ 251 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 140 $ 151 7% $ 167 11% $ 180 8% $ 197 9% $ 211 7% $ 221 5% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 122 $ 134 10% $ 146 9% $ 164 13% $ 179 9% $ 189 6% $ 203 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 110 $ 123 12% $ 133 9% $ 148 11% $ 159 8% $ 172 8% $ 183 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 103 $ 107 4% $ 116 8% $ 128 11% $ 139 8% $ 150 8% $ 161 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 86 $ 97 12% $ 102 5% $ 113 11% $ 128 13% $ 138 8% $ 145 5% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 81 $ 89 10% $ 94 6% $ 105 11% $ 115 10% $ 126 9% $ 137 9% Overall $244 $258 6% $273 6% $290 6% $308 6% $324 5% $341 5%



1253 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Venable LLP Senior Partner $ 641 $ 668 4% $ 699 5% $ 720 3% $ 752 4% $ 790 5% $ 827 5% Partner(E) $ 588 $ 613 4% $ 641 5% $ 663 3% $ 688 4% $ 718 4% $ 749 4% Counsel $ 524 $ 545 4% $ 571 5% $ 593 4% $ 611 3% $ 633 3% $ 657 4% Senior Associate(E) $ 358 $ 404 13% $ 448 11% $ 483 8% $ 521 8% $ 550 6% $ 592 7% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 300 $ 322 8% $ 357 11% $ 383 7% $ 416 9% $ 431 4% $ 453 5% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 237 $ 270 14% $ 292 8% $ 319 9% $ 351 10% $ 375 7% $ 403 8% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 200 $ 224 12% $ 242 8% $ 272 13% $ 301 11% $ 337 12% $ 367 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 201 $ 209 4% $ 233 11% $ 259 11% $ 288 11% $ 310 8% $ 337 9% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 174 $ 190 9% $ 211 11% $ 226 7% $ 240 6% $ 270 13% $ 291 8% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 156 $ 171 9% $ 189 11% $ 209 10% $ 225 7% $ 238 6% $ 270 14% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 138 $ 147 6% $ 165 12% $ 185 12% $ 204 10% $ 216 6% $ 233 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 130 $ 134 3% $ 146 9% $ 157 8% $ 173 10% $ 188 8% $ 206 9% Overall $304 $325 7% $349 8% $373 7% $398 7% $421 6% $449 7%

Environmental

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Venable LLP Senior Partner $ 904 $ 925 2% $ 935 1% $ 982 5% $ 1,007 3% $ 1,055 5% $ 1,084 3% Partner(E) $ 752 $ 790 5% $ 811 3% $ 850 5% $ 873 3% $ 907 4% $ 940 4% Counsel $ 625 $ 640 2% $ 670 5% $ 701 5% $ 721 3% $ 742 3% $ 776 5% Senior Associate $ 335 $ 358 7% $ 388 8% $ 424 9% $ 463 9% $ 508 10% $ 550 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 272 $ 297 9% $ 310 5% $ 348 12% $ 388 11% $ 416 7% $ 455 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 256 $ 273 7% $ 296 8% $ 323 9% $ 352 9% $ 378 8% $ 405 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 216 $ 232 8% $ 249 7% $ 281 13% $ 307 9% $ 341 11% $ 365 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 201 $ 229 14% $ 249 9% $ 280 12% $ 297 6% $ 313 6% $ 328 5% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 187 $ 208 11% $ 222 7% $ 247 11% $ 273 11% $ 288 5% $ 302 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 171 $ 185 8% $ 202 9% $ 219 8% $ 236 8% $ 254 7% $ 272 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 171 $ 175 2% $ 193 10% $ 204 6% $ 214 5% $ 226 5% $ 242 7% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 130 $ 143 10% $ 152 6% $ 168 11% $ 184 9% $ 203 10% $ 222 9% Overall $352 $371 6% $390 5% $419 7% $443 6% $469 6% $495 6%



1301 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Nixon Peabody LLP Senior Partner $ 259 $ 271 5% $ 290 7% $ 291 0% $ 311 7% $ 320 3% $ 340 6% Partner(E) $ 233 $ 246 6% $ 259 5% $ 269 4% $ 282 5% $ 296 5% $ 309 4% Counsel(E) $ 214 $ 222 4% $ 231 4% $ 240 4% $ 250 4% $ 262 5% $ 273 4% Senior Associate $ 188 $ 200 6% $ 213 6% $ 212 -1% $ 230 9% $ 238 4% $ 240 1% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 151 $ 155 2% $ 170 10% $ 173 2% $ 192 11% $ 189 -2% $ 193 2% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 137 $ 139 1% $ 157 13% $ 151 -4% $ 175 16% $ 166 -5% $ 171 3% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 126 $ 125 -1% $ 136 9% $ 131 -4% $ 156 19% $ 145 -7% $ 153 6% 5th Year Associate $ 115 $ 115 0% $ 120 4% $ 118 -2% $ 136 15% $ 132 -3% $ 139 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 102 $ 104 1% $ 109 5% $ 107 -2% $ 119 11% $ 114 -4% $ 121 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 93 $ 94 1% $ 99 5% $ 99 -1% $ 110 11% $ 100 -9% $ 110 10% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 84 $ 83 -1% $ 88 6% $ 91 3% $ 97 6% $ 87 -10% $ 101 17% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 74 $ 74 0% $ 80 8% $ 80 0% $ 86 7% $ 77 -10% $ 93 21% Overall $148 $152 3% $163 7% $163 0% $179 9% $177 -1% $187 6%

Energy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Nixon Peabody LLP Senior Partner $ 402 $ 414 3% $ 430 4% $ 448 4% $ 464 4% $ 480 3% $ 489 2% Partner(E) $ 347 $ 360 4% $ 377 5% $ 393 4% $ 409 4% $ 417 2% $ 440 6% Counsel(E) $ 304 $ 316 4% $ 325 3% $ 342 5% $ 356 4% $ 371 4% $ 387 4% Senior Associate $ 268 $ 291 9% $ 292 1% $ 311 6% $ 320 3% $ 331 3% $ 337 2% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 207 $ 238 15% $ 226 -5% $ 258 14% $ 262 2% $ 274 4% $ 279 2% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 182 $ 217 19% $ 206 -5% $ 232 13% $ 241 4% $ 244 1% $ 251 3% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 164 $ 199 21% $ 181 -9% $ 206 14% $ 210 2% $ 217 3% $ 218 1% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 143 $ 175 23% $ 163 -7% $ 188 15% $ 182 -3% $ 197 8% $ 197 0% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 127 $ 158 24% $ 149 -6% $ 167 13% $ 166 -1% $ 176 6% $ 171 -3% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 116 $ 141 22% $ 129 -8% $ 150 16% $ 146 -3% $ 162 11% $ 149 -8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 106 $ 128 20% $ 114 -11% $ 132 16% $ 130 -2% $ 141 8% $ 129 -8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 98 $ 114 16% $ 99 -13% $ 117 18% $ 114 -2% $ 126 11% $ 118 -7% Overall $205 $229 12% $224 -2% $245 9% $250 2% $261 4% $264 1%



1399 | P a g e

PRACTICE AREAS Bankruptcy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Senior Partner(E) $ 904 $ 954 5% $ 981 3% $ 1,041 6% $ 1,065 2% $ 1,129 6% $ 1,178 4% Partner $ 837 $ 875 4% $ 900 3% $ 938 4% $ 977 4% $ 999 2% $ 1,023 2% Counsel(E) $ 612 $ 649 6% $ 673 4% $ 707 5% $ 740 5% $ 769 4% $ 797 4% Senior Associate $ 375 $ 411 10% $ 432 5% $ 461 7% $ 488 6% $ 523 7% $ 556 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 276 $ 309 12% $ 327 6% $ 369 13% $ 393 6% $ 438 11% $ 471 8% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 259 $ 277 7% $ 298 8% $ 329 10% $ 371 13% $ 398 7% $ 433 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 228 $ 249 9% $ 277 11% $ 303 9% $ 337 11% $ 362 8% $ 389 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 228 $ 246 8% $ 271 10% $ 288 6% $ 316 10% $ 333 5% $ 352 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 193 $ 214 11% $ 230 8% $ 250 9% $ 274 9% $ 300 10% $ 323 8% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 181 $ 192 6% $ 211 10% $ 225 7% $ 244 8% $ 270 11% $ 287 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 158 $ 169 7% $ 191 12% $ 207 9% $ 228 10% $ 248 9% $ 269 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 152 $ 158 4% $ 168 7% $ 180 7% $ 194 7% $ 216 12% $ 236 9% Overall $367 $392 7% $413 5% $442 7% $469 6% $499 6% $526 5%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Senior Partner $ 605 $ 635 5% $ 650 2% $ 673 4% $ 694 3% $ 718 3% $ 750 4% Partner(E) $ 598 $ 613 3% $ 626 2% $ 647 3% $ 673 4% $ 699 4% $ 724 4% Counsel $ 555 $ 575 4% $ 590 3% $ 608 3% $ 638 5% $ 667 4% $ 684 3% Senior Associate $ 285 $ 310 9% $ 333 7% $ 353 6% $ 382 8% $ 412 8% $ 434 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 215 $ 241 12% $ 264 9% $ 276 5% $ 313 13% $ 345 10% $ 375 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 210 $ 217 4% $ 237 9% $ 249 5% $ 279 12% $ 307 10% $ 334 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 185 $ 193 5% $ 205 6% $ 224 9% $ 254 13% $ 267 5% $ 284 6% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 156 $ 165 6% $ 183 10% $ 197 8% $ 214 9% $ 233 9% $ 256 10% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 124 $ 139 11% $ 155 12% $ 171 10% $ 186 9% $ 205 10% $ 223 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 127 $ 138 9% $ 156 13% $ 168 8% $ 179 6% $ 186 4% $ 203 9% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 107 $ 113 5% $ 127 13% $ 142 12% $ 155 9% $ 168 8% $ 183 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 103 $ 112 9% $ 119 6% $ 126 6% $ 137 8% $ 146 7% $ 155 6% Overall $273 $288 6% $304 6% $319 5% $342 7% $363 6% $384 6%



1452 | P a g e


Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Senior Partner $ 615 $ 639 4% $ 658 3% $ 685 4% $ 710 4% $ 727 2% $ 748 3% Partner(E) $ 539 $ 563 4% $ 583 4% $ 609 4% $ 623 2% $ 647 4% $ 673 4% Counsel(E) $ 491 $ 501 2% $ 527 5% $ 553 5% $ 575 4% $ 582 1% $ 607 4% Senior Associate $ 318 $ 336 6% $ 362 8% $ 396 9% $ 419 6% $ 458 9% $ 483 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 231 $ 247 7% $ 274 11% $ 297 8% $ 320 8% $ 354 11% $ 387 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 208 $ 229 10% $ 241 5% $ 271 12% $ 293 8% $ 312 7% $ 340 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 155 $ 169 9% $ 190 12% $ 213 12% $ 240 13% $ 271 13% $ 289 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 162 $ 167 3% $ 187 12% $ 205 10% $ 216 5% $ 239 10% $ 258 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 135 $ 152 13% $ 167 10% $ 184 10% $ 205 12% $ 217 6% $ 231 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 133 $ 137 3% $ 150 9% $ 164 9% $ 183 12% $ 198 8% $ 223 13% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 113 $ 118 5% $ 130 10% $ 141 8% $ 156 11% $ 176 13% $ 191 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 100 $ 107 7% $ 119 11% $ 130 10% $ 142 9% $ 160 13% $ 170 6% Overall $267 $280 5% $299 7% $321 7% $340 6% $362 6% $383 6%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Senior Partner $ 694 $ 724 4% $ 743 3% $ 780 5% $ 797 2% $ 831 4% $ 855 3% Partner $ 496 $ 520 5% $ 545 5% $ 571 5% $ 585 2% $ 603 3% $ 631 5% Counsel $ 429 $ 448 4% $ 467 4% $ 483 3% $ 495 2% $ 516 4% $ 539 4% Senior Associate $ 353 $ 377 7% $ 414 10% $ 452 9% $ 487 8% $ 531 9% $ 575 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 273 $ 288 5% $ 324 12% $ 354 9% $ 390 10% $ 406 4% $ 451 11% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 244 $ 262 8% $ 296 13% $ 315 6% $ 347 10% $ 362 4% $ 410 13% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 206 $ 228 11% $ 241 6% $ 264 9% $ 282 7% $ 315 11% $ 331 5% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 179 $ 184 2% $ 206 12% $ 224 9% $ 252 12% $ 274 9% $ 288 5% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 155 $ 170 10% $ 186 9% $ 202 9% $ 225 11% $ 238 6% $ 257 8% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 125 $ 137 9% $ 154 12% $ 166 8% $ 186 12% $ 207 11% $ 221 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 133 $ 145 9% $ 154 6% $ 162 6% $ 171 5% $ 186 9% $ 198 6% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 111 $ 118 7% $ 132 12% $ 143 8% $ 152 7% $ 172 13% $ 183 6% Overall $283 $300 6% $322 7% $343 7% $364 6% $387 6% $412 6%



1489 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Jackson Lewis LLP Senior Partner(E) $ 591 $ 622 5% $ 653 5% $ 706 8% $ 725 3% $ 757 4% $ 786 4% Partner $ 526 $ 553 5% $ 594 7% $ 621 5% $ 667 7% $ 673 1% $ 691 3% Counsel(E) $ 479 $ 503 5% $ 535 6% $ 553 3% $ 601 9% $ 613 2% $ 601 -2% Senior Associate $ 431 $ 453 5% $ 476 5% $ 509 7% $ 553 9% $ 539 -2% $ 535 -1% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 341 $ 371 9% $ 373 0% $ 398 7% $ 458 15% $ 413 -10% $ 410 -1% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 304 $ 327 8% $ 328 0% $ 347 6% $ 403 16% $ 363 -10% $ 373 3% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 264 $ 294 11% $ 292 -1% $ 319 9% $ 362 14% $ 316 -13% $ 336 6% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 238 $ 259 9% $ 269 4% $ 293 9% $ 319 9% $ 278 -13% $ 309 11% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 207 $ 230 11% $ 236 3% $ 264 12% $ 281 6% $ 248 -12% $ 269 9% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 190 $ 205 8% $ 206 0% $ 230 12% $ 258 12% $ 225 -13% $ 247 10% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 173 $ 186 8% $ 179 -4% $ 202 13% $ 227 12% $ 198 -13% $ 227 15% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 158 $ 166 5% $ 165 -1% $ 180 9% $ 200 11% $ 182 -9% $ 205 12% Overall $325 $347 7% $359 3% $385 7% $421 9% $400 -5% $416 4%

Labor and Employment

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Jackson Lewis LLP Senior Partner $ 618 $ 633 2% $ 654 3% $ 677 4% $ 695 3% $ 722 4% $ 744 3% Partner $ 401 $ 410 2% $ 423 3% $ 428 1% $ 449 5% $ 461 3% $ 480 4% Counsel $ 349 $ 363 4% $ 379 4% $ 395 4% $ 409 3% $ 420 3% $ 441 5% Senior Associate $ 264 $ 281 6% $ 305 9% $ 323 6% $ 344 6% $ 375 9% $ 406 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 190 $ 214 13% $ 233 9% $ 246 6% $ 272 10% $ 293 8% $ 321 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 192 $ 203 6% $ 227 12% $ 241 6% $ 256 6% $ 267 4% $ 286 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 178 $ 186 5% $ 209 12% $ 219 5% $ 230 5% $ 243 5% $ 260 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 145 $ 162 12% $ 182 12% $ 195 7% $ 205 5% $ 223 9% $ 240 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 130 $ 140 7% $ 151 8% $ 161 6% $ 178 11% $ 201 13% $ 220 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 120 $ 131 9% $ 142 8% $ 157 11% $ 169 7% $ 185 10% $ 194 5% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 113 $ 121 7% $ 128 6% $ 144 12% $ 158 10% $ 168 6% $ 184 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 94 $ 102 8% $ 111 10% $ 119 7% $ 132 11% $ 146 11% $ 158 8% Overall $233 $245 5% $262 7% $275 5% $291 6% $309 6% $328 6%



1596 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Steptoe & Johnson LLP Senior Partner $ 768 $ 808 5% $ 827 2% $ 852 3% $ 890 4% $ 930 4% $ 953 2% Partner(E) $ 686 $ 717 4% $ 753 5% $ 768 2% $ 804 5% $ 828 3% $ 863 4% Counsel(E) $ 655 $ 680 4% $ 694 2% $ 719 4% $ 740 3% $ 762 3% $ 794 4% Senior Associate(E) $ 422 $ 480 14% $ 512 6% $ 572 12% $ 624 9% $ 663 6% $ 700 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 369 $ 379 3% $ 404 7% $ 431 7% $ 475 10% $ 525 10% $ 557 6% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 351 $ 364 4% $ 394 8% $ 423 7% $ 450 6% $ 477 6% $ 515 8% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 287 $ 323 13% $ 342 6% $ 376 10% $ 396 5% $ 430 9% $ 462 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 269 $ 280 4% $ 295 5% $ 331 12% $ 348 5% $ 391 12% $ 422 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 240 $ 263 10% $ 293 11% $ 316 8% $ 333 5% $ 348 5% $ 369 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 217 $ 237 9% $ 253 7% $ 271 7% $ 296 9% $ 313 6% $ 337 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 202 $ 210 4% $ 228 9% $ 245 7% $ 267 9% $ 279 5% $ 302 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 158 $ 168 6% $ 188 12% $ 205 9% $ 235 14% $ 256 9% $ 280 9% Overall $385 $409 6% $432 6% $459 6% $488 6% $517 6% $546 6%

Energy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Steptoe & Johnson LLP Senior Partner $ 709 $ 731 3% $ 751 3% $ 777 3% $ 803 3% $ 834 4% $ 862 3% Partner(E) $ 624 $ 637 2% $ 662 4% $ 686 4% $ 700 2% $ 726 4% $ 759 5% Counsel(E) $ 540 $ 552 2% $ 571 4% $ 583 2% $ 614 5% $ 646 5% $ 668 3% Senior Associate $ 393 $ 430 9% $ 460 7% $ 495 8% $ 524 6% $ 568 8% $ 619 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 282 $ 309 9% $ 338 9% $ 369 9% $ 406 10% $ 435 7% $ 465 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 287 $ 303 6% $ 320 6% $ 338 5% $ 361 7% $ 396 10% $ 436 10% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 220 $ 249 13% $ 274 10% $ 292 6% $ 318 9% $ 356 12% $ 388 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 227 $ 245 8% $ 274 12% $ 286 4% $ 305 7% $ 328 8% $ 346 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 194 $ 209 7% $ 227 9% $ 254 12% $ 272 7% $ 298 10% $ 327 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 165 $ 182 10% $ 205 13% $ 221 8% $ 245 11% $ 268 10% $ 284 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 168 $ 178 6% $ 193 9% $ 203 5% $ 228 12% $ 244 7% $ 259 6% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 135 $ 145 8% $ 161 10% $ 180 12% $ 203 13% $ 225 11% $ 238 6% Overall $329 $347 6% $370 6% $390 6% $415 6% $444 7% $471 6%



1765 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Senior Partner $ 519 $ 532 3% $ 558 5% $ 570 2% $ 582 2% $ 596 2% $ 621 4% Partner $ 525 $ 537 2% $ 550 2% $ 561 2% $ 577 3% $ 606 5% $ 629 4% Counsel(E) $ 455 $ 466 2% $ 489 5% $ 499 2% $ 525 5% $ 557 6% $ 566 2% Senior Associate(E) $ 353 $ 381 8% $ 415 9% $ 439 6% $ 462 5% $ 501 9% $ 547 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 266 $ 278 5% $ 307 11% $ 336 9% $ 370 10% $ 393 6% $ 412 5% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 242 $ 266 10% $ 290 9% $ 306 5% $ 322 5% $ 342 6% $ 371 9% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 205 $ 221 8% $ 233 5% $ 256 10% $ 283 10% $ 304 7% $ 341 12% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 196 $ 194 -1% $ 219 13% $ 232 6% $ 252 9% $ 277 10% $ 314 13% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 159 $ 175 10% $ 192 9% $ 203 6% $ 229 13% $ 249 9% $ 279 12% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 152 $ 167 10% $ 179 7% $ 199 11% $ 211 6% $ 224 6% $ 251 12% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 139 $ 144 4% $ 158 9% $ 173 9% $ 186 7% $ 199 7% $ 224 12% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 117 $ 125 7% $ 138 10% $ 152 10% $ 167 10% $ 174 4% $ 197 14% Overall $277 $291 5% $311 7% $327 5% $347 6% $368 6% $396 7%

Energy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Senior Partner $ 435 $ 446 2% $ 465 4% $ 486 4% $ 510 5% $ 529 4% $ 548 4% Partner(E) $ 402 $ 412 2% $ 426 3% $ 445 4% $ 466 5% $ 482 3% $ 501 4% Counsel $ 361 $ 370 2% $ 378 2% $ 395 4% $ 413 4% $ 424 3% $ 443 4% Senior Associate $ 207 $ 222 7% $ 249 12% $ 280 13% $ 298 6% $ 325 9% $ 358 10% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 171 $ 184 8% $ 198 8% $ 217 9% $ 244 12% $ 260 7% $ 293 12% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 154 $ 169 10% $ 180 6% $ 193 7% $ 207 7% $ 226 9% $ 249 10% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 142 $ 148 4% $ 158 7% $ 178 12% $ 195 10% $ 208 7% $ 237 14% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 127 $ 143 13% $ 151 6% $ 162 7% $ 180 11% $ 190 6% $ 208 10% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 108 $ 122 13% $ 129 5% $ 141 9% $ 153 9% $ 165 8% $ 176 7% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 95 $ 107 12% $ 113 6% $ 122 8% $ 133 9% $ 150 13% $ 159 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 102 $ 107 5% $ 116 8% $ 122 6% $ 131 7% $ 138 6% $ 150 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 80 $ 90 13% $ 96 7% $ 105 8% $ 114 9% $ 127 12% $ 137 8% Overall $199 $210 6% $222 5% $237 7% $254 7% $269 6% $288 7%



1822 | P a g e


Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Arent Fox LLP Senior Partner $ 700 $ 734 5% $ 763 4% $ 798 5% $ 829 4% $ 872 5% $ 897 3% Partner $ 631 $ 663 5% $ 680 3% $ 705 4% $ 720 2% $ 744 3% $ 759 2% Counsel(E) $ 581 $ 596 3% $ 610 2% $ 631 4% $ 658 4% $ 691 5% $ 727 5% Senior Associate $ 433 $ 480 11% $ 510 6% $ 545 7% $ 583 7% $ 625 7% $ 681 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 310 $ 330 6% $ 369 12% $ 416 13% $ 457 10% $ 484 6% $ 551 14% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 267 $ 299 12% $ 329 10% $ 371 13% $ 398 7% $ 430 8% $ 491 14% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 260 $ 296 14% $ 315 6% $ 339 8% $ 378 12% $ 396 5% $ 441 11% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 238 $ 267 12% $ 286 7% $ 301 5% $ 333 10% $ 348 5% $ 370 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 197 $ 216 10% $ 233 8% $ 258 11% $ 276 7% $ 303 10% $ 323 6% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 178 $ 194 9% $ 209 8% $ 228 9% $ 242 6% $ 270 11% $ 288 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 173 $ 183 5% $ 197 8% $ 220 11% $ 231 5% $ 246 6% $ 267 9% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 170 $ 180 6% $ 193 7% $ 202 5% $ 210 4% $ 223 6% $ 240 8% Overall $345 $370 7% $391 6% $418 7% $443 6% $469 6% $503 7%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Arent Fox LLP Senior Partner $ 589 $ 605 3% $ 635 5% $ 658 4% $ 678 3% $ 701 3% $ 734 5% Partner $ 553 $ 570 3% $ 582 2% $ 602 3% $ 628 4% $ 642 2% $ 663 3% Counsel(E) $ 433 $ 445 3% $ 464 4% $ 486 5% $ 516 6% $ 542 5% $ 572 5% Senior Associate $ 275 $ 302 10% $ 333 10% $ 360 8% $ 395 10% $ 432 9% $ 469 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 224 $ 237 6% $ 259 9% $ 288 11% $ 313 8% $ 350 12% $ 372 6% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 203 $ 221 9% $ 246 11% $ 262 7% $ 275 5% $ 311 13% $ 335 8% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 185 $ 210 14% $ 221 5% $ 236 7% $ 245 4% $ 271 11% $ 308 14% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 157 $ 179 14% $ 192 8% $ 205 7% $ 225 10% $ 244 8% $ 274 12% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 136 $ 143 5% $ 159 11% $ 178 12% $ 193 8% $ 212 10% $ 223 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 128 $ 144 12% $ 158 10% $ 172 9% $ 185 7% $ 193 4% $ 219 14% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 114 $ 124 9% $ 137 10% $ 145 5% $ 161 11% $ 170 6% $ 183 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 97 $ 109 12% $ 121 10% $ 132 9% $ 140 6% $ 151 8% $ 166 10% Overall $258 $274 6% $292 7% $310 6% $329 6% $351 7% $376 7%



1897 | P a g e


Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Quarles & Brady LLP Senior Partner $ 440 $ 453 3% $ 465 3% $ 484 4% $ 500 3% $ 519 4% $ 544 5% Partner(E) $ 377 $ 396 5% $ 412 4% $ 425 3% $ 435 2% $ 462 6% $ 490 6% Counsel(E) $ 354 $ 368 4% $ 386 5% $ 395 2% $ 408 3% $ 420 3% $ 441 5% Senior Associate(E) $ 281 $ 300 7% $ 324 8% $ 337 4% $ 356 6% $ 387 9% $ 407 5% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 215 $ 230 7% $ 245 7% $ 262 7% $ 288 10% $ 299 4% $ 314 5% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 179 $ 196 9% $ 218 12% $ 239 10% $ 254 6% $ 273 7% $ 299 10% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 152 $ 167 10% $ 180 8% $ 196 9% $ 221 13% $ 240 9% $ 260 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 144 $ 159 11% $ 177 11% $ 189 7% $ 203 7% $ 216 6% $ 239 11% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 117 $ 130 12% $ 139 6% $ 155 12% $ 171 10% $ 190 11% $ 208 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 112 $ 127 14% $ 135 7% $ 140 4% $ 157 12% $ 173 10% $ 181 5% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 104 $ 109 6% $ 118 8% $ 127 8% $ 140 10% $ 152 9% $ 167 10% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 91 $ 102 11% $ 108 7% $ 114 5% $ 123 8% $ 132 8% $ 145 10% Overall $214 $228 7% $242 6% $255 5% $271 6% $289 6% $308 7%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Quarles & Brady LLP Senior Partner $ 430 $ 442 3% $ 455 3% $ 469 3% $ 486 4% $ 500 3% $ 521 4% Partner(E) $ 398 $ 407 2% $ 419 3% $ 437 4% $ 455 4% $ 468 3% $ 479 2% Counsel(E) $ 345 $ 356 3% $ 368 3% $ 380 3% $ 393 4% $ 414 5% $ 432 4% Senior Associate(E) $ 235 $ 249 6% $ 271 9% $ 302 11% $ 325 8% $ 364 12% $ 391 7% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 195 $ 211 8% $ 236 12% $ 251 6% $ 279 11% $ 295 6% $ 314 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 171 $ 186 9% $ 206 11% $ 225 9% $ 245 9% $ 260 6% $ 275 6% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 152 $ 157 4% $ 174 11% $ 191 9% $ 214 12% $ 228 7% $ 246 8% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 135 $ 153 13% $ 165 8% $ 174 6% $ 181 4% $ 199 10% $ 212 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 126 $ 132 5% $ 144 9% $ 159 10% $ 172 8% $ 181 5% $ 191 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 113 $ 123 9% $ 131 7% $ 139 6% $ 152 10% $ 161 6% $ 172 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 99 $ 102 3% $ 114 12% $ 124 9% $ 130 4% $ 142 9% $ 151 7% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 91 $ 98 7% $ 103 6% $ 111 7% $ 117 6% $ 130 12% $ 137 5% Overall $207 $218 5% $232 7% $247 6% $262 6% $278 6% $293 5%



1960 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Jackson Walker LLP Senior Partner $ 454 $ 473 4% $ 493 4% $ 504 2% $ 525 4% $ 542 3% $ 554 2% Partner(E) $ 400 $ 415 4% $ 434 5% $ 449 4% $ 470 5% $ 484 3% $ 497 3% Counsel $ 338 $ 348 3% $ 366 5% $ 385 5% $ 405 5% $ 416 3% $ 430 3% Senior Associate(E) $ 286 $ 301 5% $ 329 9% $ 354 8% $ 369 4% $ 383 4% $ 404 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 202 $ 211 5% $ 232 10% $ 248 7% $ 279 12% $ 313 12% $ 336 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 194 $ 213 10% $ 229 8% $ 250 9% $ 278 11% $ 288 4% $ 307 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 176 $ 192 9% $ 210 9% $ 230 10% $ 255 11% $ 265 4% $ 289 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 148 $ 167 12% $ 181 8% $ 202 12% $ 221 9% $ 241 9% $ 259 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 131 $ 147 12% $ 158 8% $ 176 11% $ 197 12% $ 215 9% $ 230 7% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 115 $ 128 11% $ 141 10% $ 155 10% $ 174 12% $ 198 14% $ 209 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 106 $ 112 6% $ 128 14% $ 138 7% $ 158 15% $ 174 10% $ 191 10% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 95 $ 102 7% $ 114 12% $ 121 6% $ 144 19% $ 153 6% $ 175 15% Overall $220 $234 6% $251 7% $268 7% $290 8% $306 6% $323 6%

Energy

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Jackson Walker LLP Senior Partner $ 593 $ 615 4% $ 635 3% $ 652 3% $ 671 3% $ 691 3% $ 724 5% Partner(E) $ 539 $ 560 4% $ 581 4% $ 605 4% $ 623 3% $ 650 4% $ 665 2% Counsel(E) $ 469 $ 487 4% $ 510 5% $ 524 3% $ 531 1% $ 547 3% $ 570 4% Senior Associate $ 290 $ 312 8% $ 341 9% $ 370 9% $ 401 8% $ 422 5% $ 448 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 228 $ 242 6% $ 259 7% $ 290 12% $ 325 12% $ 338 4% $ 371 10% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 211 $ 222 5% $ 245 10% $ 264 8% $ 292 11% $ 311 6% $ 330 6% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 180 $ 196 9% $ 223 14% $ 235 5% $ 269 14% $ 283 5% $ 300 6% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 165 $ 180 9% $ 197 9% $ 216 10% $ 239 11% $ 252 5% $ 276 10% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 151 $ 167 11% $ 181 8% $ 195 8% $ 220 13% $ 229 4% $ 241 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 135 $ 152 12% $ 163 7% $ 173 6% $ 189 9% $ 208 10% $ 223 7% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 121 $ 134 11% $ 143 7% $ 156 9% $ 178 14% $ 185 4% $ 203 10% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 108 $ 124 14% $ 130 5% $ 142 9% $ 157 11% $ 171 9% $ 181 6% Overall $266 $282 6% $301 6% $318 6% $341 7% $357 5% $378 6%



2003 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Vedder Price PC Senior Partner $ 550 $ 578 5% $ 602 4% $ 625 4% $ 645 3% $ 672 4% $ 691 3% Partner(E) $ 513 $ 530 3% $ 548 3% $ 575 5% $ 587 2% $ 592 1% $ 617 4% Counsel(E) $ 447 $ 469 5% $ 493 5% $ 517 5% $ 522 1% $ 533 2% $ 553 4% Senior Associate(E) $ 303 $ 333 10% $ 354 6% $ 391 11% $ 416 6% $ 463 11% $ 503 9% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 233 $ 263 13% $ 286 9% $ 315 10% $ 335 6% $ 359 7% $ 385 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 207 $ 225 9% $ 247 10% $ 263 6% $ 295 12% $ 326 11% $ 350 7% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 193 $ 207 7% $ 228 10% $ 242 6% $ 267 11% $ 287 7% $ 322 12% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 184 $ 195 7% $ 214 9% $ 229 7% $ 253 10% $ 264 4% $ 297 12% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 149 $ 169 13% $ 179 6% $ 198 11% $ 212 7% $ 230 8% $ 258 12% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 146 $ 157 8% $ 173 10% $ 184 7% $ 198 8% $ 207 4% $ 220 6% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 136 $ 140 3% $ 150 7% $ 160 6% $ 175 9% $ 188 8% $ 209 11% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 111 $ 116 5% $ 126 9% $ 138 9% $ 155 13% $ 168 8% $ 183 9% Overall $264 $282 7% $300 6% $320 7% $338 6% $357 6% $382 7%

Intellectual Property Litigation

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Vedder Price PC Senior Partner(E) $ 633 $ 652 3% $ 661 1% $ 683 3% $ 706 3% $ 733 4% $ 754 3% Partner $ 565 $ 577 2% $ 596 3% $ 610 2% $ 636 4% $ 654 3% $ 680 4% Counsel $ 310 $ 322 4% $ 334 4% $ 348 4% $ 362 4% $ 374 3% $ 392 5% Senior Associate(E) $ 216 $ 242 12% $ 258 7% $ 277 7% $ 301 9% $ 333 10% $ 361 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 187 $ 196 5% $ 211 8% $ 232 10% $ 261 13% $ 276 6% $ 295 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 154 $ 164 6% $ 180 10% $ 198 10% $ 219 11% $ 243 11% $ 269 11% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 138 $ 149 8% $ 156 5% $ 180 15% $ 190 6% $ 221 16% $ 245 11% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 127 $ 134 5% $ 139 4% $ 156 12% $ 173 11% $ 192 11% $ 213 11% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 111 $ 121 9% $ 123 2% $ 138 12% $ 158 15% $ 177 12% $ 185 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 97 $ 109 11% $ 113 4% $ 120 6% $ 143 20% $ 161 12% $ 163 1% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 85 $ 100 18% $ 103 3% $ 107 4% $ 131 22% $ 148 13% $ 143 -3% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 75 $ 91 20% $ 94 4% $ 95 1% $ 115 21% $ 130 13% $ 129 -1% Overall $225 $238 6% $247 4% $262 6% $283 8% $303 7% $319 5%



2290 | P a g e

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Fisher & Phillips LLP Senior Partner $ 412 $ 432 5% $ 452 5% $ 473 5% $ 492 4% $ 510 4% $ 524 3% Partner(E) $ 371 $ 376 1% $ 398 6% $ 421 6% $ 443 5% $ 464 5% $ 484 4% Counsel(E) $ 328 $ 345 5% $ 353 2% $ 370 5% $ 390 5% $ 408 5% $ 429 5% Senior Associate $ 292 $ 317 9% $ 307 -3% $ 333 9% $ 343 3% $ 375 10% $ 391 4% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 229 $ 262 15% $ 243 -7% $ 261 7% $ 275 5% $ 297 8% $ 303 2% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 208 $ 239 15% $ 216 -9% $ 235 9% $ 250 6% $ 262 5% $ 275 5% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 183 $ 215 17% $ 188 -12% $ 207 10% $ 220 6% $ 228 4% $ 248 9% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 159 $ 198 24% $ 171 -13% $ 186 9% $ 198 6% $ 205 4% $ 216 5% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 139 $ 182 31% $ 151 -17% $ 166 10% $ 180 9% $ 188 5% $ 192 2% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 126 $ 166 31% $ 139 -16% $ 144 4% $ 166 15% $ 168 1% $ 177 5% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 112 $ 147 31% $ 125 -15% $ 125 0% $ 149 19% $ 148 -1% $ 159 8% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 100 $ 130 30% $ 110 -15% $ 112 2% $ 137 23% $ 128 -6% $ 141 10% Overall $222 $251 13% $238 -5% $253 6% $270 7% $282 4% $295 5%

Labor and Employment

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Fisher & Phillips LLP Senior Partner $ 550 $ 573 4% $ 597 4% $ 615 3% $ 627 2% $ 652 4% $ 677 4% Partner $ 305 $ 319 5% $ 327 3% $ 340 4% $ 356 5% $ 374 5% $ 386 3% Counsel $ 280 $ 293 5% $ 291 -1% $ 299 3% $ 324 8% $ 325 0% $ 344 6% Senior Associate $ 244 $ 261 7% $ 265 2% $ 272 3% $ 295 8% $ 293 -1% $ 316 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 193 $ 209 8% $ 210 0% $ 211 0% $ 231 10% $ 224 -3% $ 253 13% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 174 $ 186 7% $ 193 4% $ 188 -3% $ 213 13% $ 206 -3% $ 233 13% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 160 $ 169 6% $ 176 4% $ 163 -7% $ 185 13% $ 188 1% $ 210 12% 5th Year Associate $ 147 $ 152 4% $ 153 0% $ 142 -7% $ 168 18% $ 167 -1% $ 193 16% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 130 $ 140 8% $ 139 -1% $ 131 -6% $ 150 15% $ 152 1% $ 168 11% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 118 $ 125 6% $ 122 -2% $ 120 -2% $ 135 12% $ 135 0% $ 148 9% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 108 $ 109 0% $ 107 -2% $ 105 -2% $ 117 12% $ 122 4% $ 134 11% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 99 $ 96 -3% $ 93 -3% $ 94 2% $ 106 12% $ 107 1% $ 121 13% Overall $209 $219 5% $223 2% $223 0% $242 8% $245 1% $265 8%



2384 | P a g e

Creditor's Rights

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate GrayRobinson PA Senior Partner $ 491 $ 503 2% $ 515 2% $ 527 2% $ 543 3% $ 557 2% $ 578 4% Partner(E) $ 412 $ 430 4% $ 448 4% $ 469 5% $ 473 1% $ 495 5% $ 517 4% Counsel(E) $ 390 $ 398 2% $ 409 3% $ 419 3% $ 434 4% $ 456 5% $ 468 3% Senior Associate $ 221 $ 242 9% $ 261 8% $ 279 7% $ 303 9% $ 332 9% $ 353 6% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 176 $ 187 6% $ 198 6% $ 214 8% $ 232 9% $ 257 11% $ 276 8% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 158 $ 170 8% $ 180 5% $ 190 6% $ 202 6% $ 229 13% $ 240 5% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 126 $ 138 10% $ 155 12% $ 169 10% $ 186 10% $ 208 12% $ 223 7% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 122 $ 135 10% $ 144 7% $ 161 12% $ 171 6% $ 185 8% $ 200 8% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 111 $ 118 6% $ 128 8% $ 141 10% $ 156 10% $ 168 8% $ 185 10% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 97 $ 101 4% $ 113 13% $ 126 11% $ 137 9% $ 152 11% $ 165 9% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 91 $ 96 6% $ 103 8% $ 116 12% $ 125 7% $ 136 9% $ 150 10% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 86 $ 95 10% $ 101 7% $ 108 7% $ 115 6% $ 123 7% $ 132 7% Overall $207 $218 5% $230 5% $243 6% $256 5% $275 7% $291 6%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate GrayRobinson PA Senior Partner(E) $ 319 $ 330 4% $ 345 4% $ 362 5% $ 374 4% $ 390 4% $ 404 3% Partner $ 301 $ 315 4% $ 329 4% $ 336 2% $ 350 4% $ 361 3% $ 374 3% Counsel(E) $ 254 $ 261 3% $ 277 6% $ 289 4% $ 307 6% $ 325 6% $ 343 6% Senior Associate $ 189 $ 202 7% $ 219 9% $ 237 8% $ 258 9% $ 282 9% $ 305 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 146 $ 161 10% $ 170 5% $ 180 6% $ 200 11% $ 218 9% $ 238 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 126 $ 141 12% $ 153 9% $ 161 5% $ 174 8% $ 190 9% $ 201 6% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 117 $ 126 8% $ 135 7% $ 149 10% $ 160 8% $ 175 9% $ 192 10% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 100 $ 107 8% $ 121 13% $ 132 9% $ 139 5% $ 157 13% $ 168 7% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 93 $ 100 8% $ 108 8% $ 115 6% $ 124 8% $ 138 12% $ 145 5% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 82 $ 91 11% $ 96 6% $ 102 6% $ 113 10% $ 123 9% $ 135 9% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 76 $ 83 9% $ 88 6% $ 93 6% $ 102 9% $ 110 8% $ 118 7% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 66 $ 75 12% $ 80 8% $ 86 7% $ 91 7% $ 95 4% $ 104 9% Overall $156 $166 7% $177 7% $187 6% $199 7% $214 7% $227 6%



2566 | P a g e

Electronic Discovery

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Lane Powell PC Senior Partner(E) $ 437 $ 448 2% $ 476 6% $ 495 4% $ 515 4% $ 526 2% $ 551 5% Partner $ 401 $ 415 3% $ 429 3% $ 450 5% $ 464 3% $ 474 2% $ 487 3% Counsel(E) $ 379 $ 391 3% $ 400 2% $ 414 3% $ 427 3% $ 431 1% $ 444 3% Senior Associate(E) $ 245 $ 257 5% $ 287 11% $ 320 12% $ 349 9% $ 379 9% $ 408 8% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 220 $ 233 6% $ 254 9% $ 276 9% $ 298 8% $ 311 4% $ 333 7% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 181 $ 190 5% $ 210 10% $ 228 9% $ 247 8% $ 270 9% $ 291 8% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 162 $ 175 8% $ 190 9% $ 209 10% $ 221 6% $ 243 10% $ 268 10% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 149 $ 153 2% $ 170 11% $ 191 13% $ 212 11% $ 221 4% $ 243 10% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 138 $ 144 5% $ 162 13% $ 171 5% $ 191 11% $ 199 4% $ 224 12% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 118 $ 124 6% $ 136 10% $ 149 9% $ 166 11% $ 183 10% $ 197 8% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 117 $ 120 3% $ 128 6% $ 139 8% $ 153 10% $ 169 10% $ 177 5% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 100 $ 103 3% $ 116 12% $ 130 12% $ 145 12% $ 155 7% $ 164 6% Overall $221 $229 4% $246 7% $264 7% $282 7% $297 5% $316 6%

ERISA

Practice Area 2012 2103 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018e % Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Lane Powell PC Senior Partner $ 542 $ 565 4% $ 581 3% $ 607 4% $ 623 3% $ 649 4% $ 666 3% Partner $ 352 $ 366 4% $ 383 5% $ 391 2% $ 400 2% $ 411 3% $ 428 4% Counsel(E) $ 310 $ 318 3% $ 332 4% $ 348 5% $ 356 2% $ 365 3% $ 385 5% Senior Associate(E) $ 201 $ 224 11% $ 241 7% $ 268 11% $ 291 8% $ 318 9% $ 339 7% 8th Year Associate(E) $ 156 $ 163 4% $ 182 12% $ 197 8% $ 213 9% $ 241 13% $ 262 9% 7th Year Associate(E) $ 135 $ 150 11% $ 166 11% $ 183 10% $ 201 10% $ 212 5% $ 233 10% 6th Year Associate(E) $ 122 $ 130 7% $ 146 12% $ 164 12% $ 181 11% $ 193 6% $ 203 5% 5th Year Associate(E) $ 110 $ 124 12% $ 134 8% $ 146 9% $ 161 11% $ 173 8% $ 184 6% 4th Year Associate(E) $ 97 $ 104 8% $ 116 11% $ 126 9% $ 135 7% $ 151 12% $ 163 8% 3rd Year Associate(E) $ 85 $ 93 9% $ 98 5% $ 103 6% $ 117 13% $ 131 13% $ 145 10% 2nd Year Associate(E) $ 78 $ 81 5% $ 86 5% $ 97 13% $ 108 12% $ 117 8% $ 133 14% 1st Year Associate(E) $ 72 $ 74 3% $ 78 5% $ 87 11% $ 96 11% $ 106 11% $ 121 14% Overall $188 $199 6% $212 6% $226 7% $240 6% $256 6% $272 6%


EXHIBIT


Schwan’s Salmonella LitigationIn Re: Salmonella Litigation


“Method and system for assembling databases in multiple-party proceedings”

Risks and Regulations: Best Practices that Protect Class Member Confidentiality


Recent Developments in Class Action Notice and Claims Administration

The Beginning and the End of Class Action Lawsuits

lass Action Administration: Data and Technology

Developments in Legal Notice



Class Actions 101: Best Practices and Potential Pitfalls in Providing Class Notice

Doe 1 v. Deja vu Servs., Inc

Also, the Plaintiffs certified that notice had been provided in accordancewith the Court'spreliminary approval order. The notices stated—in clear and easily understandableterms—the key information class members needed to make an informed decision: thenature of the action, the class claims, the definition of the class, the general outline ofthe settlement, how to elect for a cash payment, how to opt out of the class, how to objectto the settlement, the right of class members to secure counsel, and the binding natureof the settlement on class members who do not to opt out.

* * *

In addition, the parties took additional steps to provide notice to class members,including through targeted advertisements on social media. The Court finds that theparties have provided the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,” and


complied with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Class ActionFairness Act of 2005, and due process.3

Geanacopoulos v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

The Court finds that the plan of Notice as described in paragraphs 12 through 20 of the Settlement Agreement, including the use of email, mail, publication and internet notice, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice to the Class.

In re: Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig.

On the issue of appropriate notice, the court previously recognized the uniqueness of the class asserted in this case, since it could potentially cover most internet users in the United States. On that ground, the court approved the proposed notice plan involving four media channels: (1) internet-based notice using paid banner ads targeted at potential class members (in English and in Spanish on Spanish-language websites); (2) notice via “earned media” or, in other words, through articles in the press; (3) a website decided solely to the settlement (in English and Spanish versions); and (4) a toll-free telephone number where class members can obtain additional information and request a class notice. In addition, the court approved the content and appearance of the class notice and related forms as consistent with Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

The court again finds that the notice plan and class notices are consistent with Rule 23, and that the plan has been fully and properly implemented by the parties and the class administrator.

Kobylanski. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.

The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice to Settlement Class Members Re: Pendency of Class Action, as provided for in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval for the Settlement, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all Persons within the definition of the Class and fully met the requirements of due process under the United States Constitution.


. In re: CertainTeed Fiber Cement Siding Litig.

Settlement class members were provided with notice of the settlement in the manner and form set forth in the settlement agreement. Notice was also provided to pertinent state and federal officials. The notice plan was reasonably calculated to give actual notice to settlement class members of their right to receive benefits from the settlement or to be excluded from the settlement or object to the settlement. The notice plan met the requirements of Rule 23 and due process.

In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig.

Due and adequate notice of the Settlement was provided to the Class. . . . The manner of giving notice provided in this case fully satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. A full and fair opportunity was provided to the members of the Class to be heard regarding the Settlements.

Plubell v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Under the circumstances, the notice of this Settlement provided to Class Members inaccordancewith the Notice Orderwas the best notice practicable of the proceedings andmatters set forth therein, including the proposed Settlement, to all Persons entitled tosuch notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements due process and Missourilaw.

Skold v. Intel Corp.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed Notice plan has a reasonable chance ofreaching a substantial percentage of class members.

Greenville IL v. Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc.

The Notice provided to the Class fully complied with Rule 23, was the best noticepracticable, satisfied all constitutional due process requirements, and provides theCourt with jurisdiction over the Class Members.


in re m&t bank corporation erisa litigation · 4 x larson v. allina heath system, no....

Documents