Career Resources

A federal judge has rejected a lawyer’s proposed $3,000 hourly rate as unreasonable. However, the court approved more than $22.6 million in legal fees from a $68 million Google privacy settlement.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman reduced David Scott’s hourly rate to $1,600 for calculating legal fees. Scott is the managing partner of Scott + Scott, a plaintiffs’ law firm.

The judge did not reject the full fee request. Instead, she approved about one-third of the settlement fund for attorney fees.

The October 2026 ruling highlights growing concern over lawyer billing rates. It also shows that courts can approve large fee awards while rejecting the rates used to calculate them.

Key Takeaways

• Judge Beth Labson Freeman cut a $3,000 hourly rate to $1,600. The lower rate applied to the court’s fee calculation.
• The court approved about $22.67 million in attorney fees. The money came from a $68 million Google privacy settlement.
• David Scott’s proposed rate drew criticism. The judge found that the evidence did not support the requested amount.
• Three other lawyers also faced rate cuts. The court used a $1,600 hourly rate for all four lawyers.
• The ruling does not set a nationwide rate limit. It applies to this specific fee award.
• The case highlights the need for clear billing records. Lawyers must support their fee requests with sound evidence.

Judge Rejects $3,000 Hourly Lawyer Rate

Judge Freeman reviewed the lawyers’ fee request in the Google Assistant privacy case.

David Scott asked the court to use a rate of $3,000 per hour for his work. However, the judge found that the evidence did not support that amount.

Freeman noted that senior partners often charge more than other lawyers. She also recognized that legal rates rise over time.

Still, she found those points insufficient to support Scott’s proposed rate. The court instead used $1,600 per hour to calculate his fees.

The ruling does not stop lawyers from charging $3,000 per hour. It sets the rate the court accepted for this fee calculation.

Three Other Lawyers Also Face Rate Cuts

The court also reviewed the rates requested by three other lawyers.

Daryl Scott of Scott + Scott asked for $1,960 per hour. Meanwhile, Geoffrey Horn and Vincent Briganti of Lowey Dannenberg each sought $1,795 per hour.

The judge reduced all four lawyers’ rates to $1,600 per hour for the fee calculation.

These changes lowered the calculated lodestar by about $217,800.

The lodestar measures legal work by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. Courts may use this figure to check whether a fee request is fair.

As a result, the judge examined both the rates and the evidence behind the lawyers’ request.

Court Approves $22.67 Million in Legal Fees

Although Judge Freeman cut the hourly rates, she approved the overall fee request.

The $68 million settlement provided about $22.67 million in attorney fees. The court also approved about $1.02 million in legal expenses.

The decision shows why hourly rates and total fees must be considered separately.

The judge found that the fee award was fair, even after reducing the rates used in the lodestar calculation.

The court also checked the award against the revised lodestar. The resulting ratio was about 1.009. The judge found that this check did not change her view of the fee award.

Why the Fee Calculation Matters

Courts review attorney fee requests to make sure the amounts are fair under the law.

In class action cases, lawyers may ask for a share of the settlement fund. Judges can compare that amount with the work performed and the rates used to value it.

A high hourly rate does not automatically make an entire fee request unfair. Likewise, approval of a large fee award does not mean the court accepts every rate submitted by the lawyers.

Therefore, courts must review both the total fee and the evidence used to support it.

Google Recording Claims

The lawsuit focused on Google’s voice-activated Assistant.

The plaintiffs claimed that the technology recorded private conversations after activating by mistake. They also alleged that Google used the information for targeted ads.

Google denied wrongdoing but agreed to pay $68 million to settle the claims.

The settlement helped both sides avoid the cost and risk of further litigation.

Judge Freeman approved the settlement and reviewed the lawyers’ request for fees and expenses.

The case shows how privacy lawsuits can lead to large settlements and legal bills. It also highlights the court’s role in reviewing lawyers’ fees.

Scott + Scott Defended Its Rates

Scott + Scott defended its proposed rates in its fee request. The firm said its rates matched those charged by California lawyers with similar skills and experience.

However, the judge found that the evidence did not support the highest rates.

The court reviewed market rates and past fee awards before making its decision.

This finding offers a lesson for law firms. Lawyers who seek court approval for their fees should provide clear evidence to support their rates.

Simply pointing to high rates at other firms may not be enough. The evidence must also show why the requested rate fits the case.

BigLaw Billing Rates Continue to Rise

Hourly rates at major U.S. law firms continue to climb.

Some prominent attorneys charge as much as $4,000 per hour. Other senior lawyers charge more than $3,000.

These rates reflect demand for skilled lawyers who handle complex cases and major business deals.

However, high market rates do not guarantee court approval. Judges can reject proposed rates when the evidence does not support them.

High Legal Fees Create Challenges for Clients

Rising legal fees can put pressure on businesses and individuals.

For companies, high rates can increase the cost of lawsuits and business deals. For individuals, they can make legal help harder to afford.

Class action cases raise another issue. Courts must review fees when lawyers seek payment from a shared settlement fund.

As a result, lawyers must show that their requested fees are fair. Their skills and experience alone may not be enough.

The Google ruling does not suggest that high rates are always unfair. Instead, it shows why lawyers must support their fee requests with evidence.

Staffing Choices Can Increase Legal Costs

Hourly rates are only one part of a legal bill. Staffing choices can also raise costs.

Law professor and fee examiner Nancy Rapoport has discussed how poor staffing can increase legal bills.

For example, too many lawyers at a meeting can add needless costs. Senior partners may also charge more for work that junior lawyers could handle.

Overlapping assignments can create more waste. As a result, firms should match each task to the right level of experience.

Law firms can also review bills for work that was not needed. Clients should ask firms to explain their staffing plans and the value of senior lawyers’ work.

Judge Freeman praised the result of the Google settlement. Her ruling focused on the proposed hourly rates, not the way the lawyers staffed the case.

What the Ruling Means

The decision offers useful lessons for law firms and their clients.

First, firms should keep clear billing records. They should also show how their rates compare with those of similar lawyers.

Second, firms must know the difference between the rates they charge clients and the rates a court accepts for a fee award.

Third, clients should review staffing choices as well as hourly rates. A lower rate does not always mean a lower bill. The total cost also depends on how many hours the work takes.

Finally, the ruling shows that a court can reduce part of a fee request without rejecting the full award.

For law firms, clear records can help support fee requests. For clients, careful billing reviews can help control costs.

As legal fees rise, both sides have reason to focus on fair rates, efficient work, and clear records.

FAQs

1. Why did the judge reject the $3,000 hourly rate?

Judge Beth Labson Freeman found that the evidence did not support David Scott’s proposed $3,000 hourly rate for the fee calculation.

She noted that senior lawyers often charge more than other attorneys. She also recognized that rates rise over time.

However, the judge found that these points did not justify the requested rate in this case. She used $1,600 per hour instead.

The ruling applies to this fee request. It does not set a limit on what all lawyers can charge.

2. Who is David Scott?

David Scott is the managing partner of Scott + Scott, a law firm that represents plaintiffs in complex cases.

He worked on the Google Assistant privacy lawsuit. The case involved claims that the voice assistant recorded private conversations after activating by mistake.

Scott asked the court to use a $3,000 hourly rate when calculating his fees. The judge rejected that rate and used $1,600 instead.

The court still approved the overall fee award. The ruling shows why lawyers need clear evidence to support their rates when a judge reviews their fees.

3. How much did the court approve in attorney fees?

The court approved about $22.67 million in attorney fees from a $68 million Google privacy settlement.

That amount represents about one-third of the settlement fund. The court also approved about $1.02 million in legal expenses.

The judge reduced several hourly rates but still found the overall fee award fair.

These decisions address two different issues. The hourly rate helps measure the value of legal work. The total fee award reflects the amount the lawyers receive under the court’s decision.

A court can question the rates used in a fee calculation without rejecting the full fee request.

4. Can lawyers still charge $3,000 per hour?

Yes. The ruling does not ban lawyers from charging $3,000 per hour.

Rates vary by firm, location, practice area, and experience. The type of case and the client’s agreement can also affect the rate.

However, a rate charged to a client may differ from the rate a court accepts when reviewing a fee request.

In this case, the judge used a lower rate to calculate the award. Her decision does not create a nationwide cap on legal fees.

The key point is that lawyers may need to justify their rates when they ask a court to approve their fees.

5. How do courts decide whether attorney fees are fair?

Courts review fee requests under the laws and rules that apply to each case.

They may consider the hours worked, the difficulty of the case, the lawyer’s experience, market rates, and the result achieved.

Some courts use the lodestar method. This method multiplies reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate.

In class action cases, lawyers may also ask for a share of the settlement fund. A judge can compare that share with the value of the work performed.

The method depends on the case and the law. Lawyers should provide clear records and explain how they reached the requested amount.

6. What is the lodestar method?

The lodestar method helps courts measure the value of legal work.

It multiplies the number of reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. For example, 100 hours at $500 per hour would produce a lodestar of $50,000.

The court can then use that figure to review a fee request.

However, the lodestar does not always decide the final award. Courts may use other methods or compare the figure with a percentage of a settlement fund.

In the Google case, Judge Freeman lowered the rates used in the calculation. She then reviewed the result as part of her assessment of the overall fee award.

7. Why do BigLaw lawyers charge thousands of dollars per hour?

Large law firms often handle complex lawsuits, major deals, and other high-value matters.

Senior lawyers may bring years of experience and skills that clients need for difficult cases. Firms also consider demand, costs, and market rates when setting fees.

However, rates vary across firms and practice areas. Not every partner charges the same amount.

A high rate does not always mean a court will accept it in a fee request. Judges may ask for evidence that supports the rate.

The Google case shows that lawyers must back up their proposed rates when a court reviews their fees.

8. Can a judge reduce a lawyer’s fee request?

Yes. A judge can reduce a fee request if the evidence or calculation does not meet the legal rules.

The court may lower the hourly rates, reject some billed hours, or adjust other parts of the request.

The size of the reduction depends on the facts and the law.

In the Google case, Judge Freeman reduced the rates used to calculate fees for four lawyers. Still, she approved about $22.67 million in attorney fees.

This shows that a judge can question part of a fee request without rejecting the entire award.

9. How can law firms support high hourly rates?

Law firms should provide evidence that supports their rates.

This may include rates charged by lawyers with similar skills and experience. Firms can also point to relevant past fee awards and market data.

Clear time records are also important. They help show what work the lawyers performed and how much time it took.

A firm’s name or reputation alone may not justify every rate. The evidence should fit the lawyer, the work, and the market.

Good records help courts review fee requests. They also help clients understand the cost of legal services.

10. How do high lawyer fees affect clients?

High hourly rates can raise the cost of legal help.

For businesses, these costs can affect budgets, deals, and decisions about lawsuits. For individuals and small groups, high fees can make it harder to hire experienced lawyers.

However, the hourly rate is only part of the total bill. The number of hours worked and the size of the legal team also matter.

Clients can manage costs by setting budgets and asking for regular billing reports. They can also review who is working on the case and what each person does.

Clear bills help clients see where their money goes. The Google case shows why courts and clients should look beyond the hourly rate alone.

11. What does the ruling mean for class action lawyers?

The ruling shows why class action lawyers need strong records to support their fee requests.

When lawyers seek payment from a settlement fund, courts may review the requested share and the work performed. They may also examine the rates used to value that work.

In the Google case, the judge approved a large fee award but lowered the rates used in the lodestar check.

Class action lawyers should keep detailed time records and provide evidence for their rates. They should also explain why the requested fee is fair.

These steps help courts review the request and understand how the lawyers reached the amount.

12. Will this ruling lower lawyer rates across the country?

The ruling does not require law firms across the country to lower their rates.

It deals with one fee request in one case. It does not set a general limit on what lawyers can charge.

However, the decision shows that judges may question rates when they review attorney fees.

Law firms should be ready to explain their rates when court approval is needed. Clients can also ask more questions about billing and staffing.

The effect on future cases will depend on the facts, the evidence, and the law that applies to each case.

Conclusion

The Google privacy settlement shows how courts can review legal fees in detail.

Judge Freeman cut the hourly rates used for four lawyers but approved about $22.67 million in attorney fees. The decision shows that a large fee award does not mean every proposed rate will be accepted.

Law firms should keep clear records and support their rates with evidence. Clients should review both hourly rates and staffing costs.

As legal bills rise, fair rates and clear billing records remain important for lawyers, clients, and courts.

Looking for your next legal career opportunity? Explore attorney jobs, compare law firms, and find positions that match your skills on LawCrossing.

See Also:

Corporate Governance Careers: A Powerful Guide for Lawyers

The post Lawyer’s $3,000 Hourly Rate Sparks Judicial Backlash first appeared on JDJournal Blog.