International Law

Why Is Minneapolis Home to So Many Franchise Law Firms?

This posting was written by Bruce S. Schaeffer of Franchise Valuations, Ltd., co-author of CCH Franchise Regulation and Damages.

Perhaps it has something to do with attorney fee rates. For example, in an attorney's fee dispute, the federal district court in Minnesota recently held as follows:

A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services provided by lawyers of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 & n. 11 (1984). "Generally, when determining a reasonable hourly rate, the relevant legal community is the forum in which the district court sits." Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008); accord Fish v. St. Cloud State Univ., 295 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir. 2002). Here, Dominos seeks reimbursement for work performed, inter alia, by lawyers from the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Latham & Watkins, many of whom charge rates substantially out of line with rates charged in the Twin Cities area. For example, an associate at Latham & Watkins with 5 years' experience, Alexander Maltas, charged $480 per hour, while Dominos' lead local counsel --Quentin Wittrock, a partner with the law firm Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett who has over 20 years' experience, specializing in franchise disputes --billed no more than $425 per hour over the course of this case. In some instances Dominos seeks reimbursement for Latham & Watkins lawyers charging over $800 per hour, nearly double that charged by local counsel. (See Graziani Decl. at 12-13.) Dominos also seeks reimbursement for work performed by lawyers in the Chicago office of DLA Piper and the Dallas office of Haynes and Boone, often at well over $500 per hour. (See id. at 5, 10.)

Although parties may be reimbursed for work performed by out-of-town lawyers charging out-of-town rates, generally this is permitted only when in-town counsel with expertise in a particular area cannot be located. See, e.g., Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137, 140-41 (8th Cir. 1982); Howard Johnson Int'l, Inc. v. Inn Dev., Inc., Civ. No. 07-1024, 2008 WL 2563463, at *1 (D.S.D. June 23, 2008). Dominos has made no attempt to justify the use of out-of-town counsel (with very high rates) to assist it in this matter. See Avalon, 689 F.2d at 140-41 (burden rests with party seeking fees to show why out-of-town counsel was necessary). Nor does the Court believe that these hourly rates are in line with those charged by lawyers of similar skill and experience in the Twin Cities area.

The decision is Bores v. Domino's Pizza (October 27, 2008), CCH Business Franchise Guide ¶14,011.

Full post as published by Trade Regulation Talk on February 04, 2009 (boomark / email).