Court Orders UNUM to pay over one million dollars in attorney fees for long-term disability denial

A case that took over 10 years to move through the federal judicial system, finally ended with the court agreeing that Unum must pay attorney’s fees and costs. However when the bill was delivered, Unum sought the court’s intervention because Unum claimed that the attorney fees and costs were excessive.

Jane Fitts’ long term disability battle with Unum had been a long one. The final bill that her attorneys delivered came to $1,384,127.79 in fees and costs. She supplied supporting records of the time spent by her attorneys. Unum contended that it should only have to pay half of this, and Fitts found herself in court once again.

Unum presents their arguments to reduce attorney fees

Unum presented multiple arguments to support their demand that the bill should be reduced by 50%. The first argument claimed that because Unum had prevailed on all but the one claim upon which they agreed to settle with her, they shouldn’t have to pay all of her fees. Fitts argued that part of the settlement included recovering fees and costs. The court disagreed. Unum’s agreement with Fitts fell under ERISA jurisdiction, not civil rights statutes where the degree of success is relevant to determining what is a reasonable fee. Under ERISA, fees are either appropriate or not appropriate. Once the court determines that fees are appropriate, the extent to which one party prevailed versus another becomes irrelevant.

Unum also argued that Fitts’ fees needed to be reduced, because the amount she was seeking was grossly disproportionate to the amount that Unum had spent in defending itself. Unum claimed that they had spent $400,000 less than Fitts. At the same time, Unum did not find the hourly rate charged by Fitts’ attorneys unacceptable, it was only the total bill that concerned them.

The Court did not find this difference in fees proof that Fitt’s request was unreasonable. The court agreed with Fitts’ observation that Unum was very experienced at litigation under ERISA, whereas she was not. Thus, her attorney’s fees and costs would naturally be greater.

Unum claims billing detail is insufficient

Unum argued that the billing records contained flaws. One such flaw included block billing where various tasks were lumped together so that it was impossible to evaluate the reasonableness of the entries. They cited a court ruling in the D.C. circuit where this had been ordered. After reviewing the records, the court found that there was sufficient detail included in most of the billing entries to support with a high degree of certainty that the hours listed were actual and reasonable.

When the court looked at many of the entries that Unum claimed were block billing entries, the court found that the entries were descriptive of how the attorney had spent the hours. For example an attorney may have spent 6 1/2 hours “editing and revising motion for attorney fees” and conducting “legal research.” This type of block entry was acceptable to the court. But other entries were vague. The court determined that an adjustment downward would be appropriate based upon the number of instances where the details were insufficient.

Unum also argued that a 50% fee reduction was appropriate because some of the attorney’s billing entries weren’t specific enough. When the Court compared the length of time and the multiple briefings involved, the costs appeared in line with expectations. In the light of this fact, the Court recognized “how lawyers work and how they notate their time.” The Court would not demand exacting details for how Fitts’ attorney’s allocated their time and refused to scrutinize each billing entry.

But some entries, as identified by Unum, were inadequate because they didn’t identify why the activity should be billed to Unum. “Research” related to what aspect of the case? “Meetings” discussed what subject? “Confer and emails with client” dealt with which issues? “Reviewing and revising” applied to which document? These inadequacies would be considered in determining how much of a fee reduction the Court would assess.

Unum moved on to pointing out specific entries that they disagreed with. For example they claimed that Fitts’ attorneys billed twice for work on the same document, on the same day. Fitts failed to explain why this would be necessary or why this was not a duplication of effort. Apparent duplications would be considered in determining how much the fees should be reduced.

Unum points out valid inconsistencies

Unum noticed other inconsistencies. One entry billed for time spent working on a reply brief that had been filed in court the day before. Other entries violated a Court standard that does not allow legal firms to bill for secretarial tasks such as organizing and updating files at paralegal rates, even if a paralegal within the firm does the work. Unum also noted that attorney travel times were not billed at a reduced rate of 50%, the prevailing norm within the U.S. District Court of the District of Colombia.

Another inconsistency that Unum noticed was the inclusion of entries for time spent working on claims against Fannie Mae, who was not a party to the settlement agreement. The court agreed that this would be inappropriate and that these fees should be struck.

The court finds middle ground

The Court found that some of Unum’s arguments had merit. Many did not. But when all the evidence was considered, the Court did not find that the valid issues supported a 50% reduction in the attorney’s fees. The Court used the established practice of reducing the overall fee request by a reasonable percentage, comparable to the level of flawed entries. The Court determined this should be 15%, not 50%.

Cases like this emphasize how important careful billing can be for an attorney’s clients. Fitts’ case remained active in the legal system for over 10 years. You might think this is unusual, but every attorney should retain meticulous records no matter how long the case continues. Most cases requiring litigation can last several years and the average is three years.

Long-term disability insurance companies like Unum have a reputation for picking apart requests for fees and costs. Choose an attorney that has the ability to stand behind your case and battle the disability insurance company for as long as it takes.

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

Do you help Unum claimants nationwide?

We represent Unum clients nationwide and we encourage you to contact us for a FREE immediate phone consultation with one of our experienced disability insurance attorneys.

Can you help with a Unum disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Unum. We have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants nationwide with monthly disability benefits. With more than 40 years of disability insurance experience we have helped individuals in almost every occupation and we are familiar with the disability income policies offered by Unum.

How do you help Unum claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Unum long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer.

Our experienced lawyers can assist with Unum:

  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Appeals of Disability Benefit Denials
  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Disability Benefit Lawsuits
  • Applying For Short or Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Daily Handling & Management of Your Disability Claim
  • Disability Insurance Lump-Sum Buyout or Settlement Negotiations

Do you work in my state?

Yes. We are a national disability insurance law firm that is available to represent you regardless of where you live in the United States. We have partner lawyers in every state and we have filed lawsuits in most federal courts nationwide. Our disability lawyers represent disability claimants at all stages of a claim for disability insurance benefits. There is nothing that our lawyers have not seen in the disability insurance world.

What are your fees?

Since we represent disability insurance claimants at different stages of a disability insurance claim we offer a variety of different fee options. We understand that claimants living on disability insurance benefits have a limited source of income; therefore we always try to work with the claimant to make our attorney fees as affordable as possible.

The three available fee options are a contingency fee agreement (no attorney fee or cost unless we make a recovery), hourly fee or fixed flat rate.

In every case we provide each client with a written fee agreement detailing the terms and conditions. We always offer a free initial phone consultation and we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in obtaining payment of your disability insurance benefits.

Do I have to come to your office to work with your law firm?

No. For purposes of efficiency and to reduce expenses for our clients we have found that 99% of our clients prefer to communicate via telephone, e-mail, fax, sessions, or Skype. If you prefer an initial in-person meeting please let us know. A disability company will never require you to come to their office and similarly we are set up so that we handle your entire claim without the need for you to come to our office.

How can I contact you?

When you call us during normal business hours you will immediately speak with a disability attorney. We can be reached at 800-682-8331 or by email. Lawyer and staff must return all client calls same day. Client emails are usually replied to within the same business day and seem to be the preferred and most efficient method of communication for most clients.

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

Darrell H.

Mr. Symonds, and all staff that I worked with at Dell & Shaefer, were professional in every aspect throughout the process of filing for a contested claim of Long Term Disability with The Hartford. After having approved Short Term Disability, and with no improvement in my condition, The Hartford somehow found that I was no longer disabled.

Mr. Symonds conducted research and collected collaborative documentation from all health care professional involved with my treatment, diagnosis, short/long term prognosis, and relevant history. In all aspects of preparation to submit my claim during the appeal process, Dell & Schaefer was diligent in tending to my interests and in preserving my privacy. Ultimately, my appeal was approved, Long Term Disability was retroactively enacted, and diligent service continues today, with Mr. Symonds and staff remaining accessible and responsive during every step of the way.

Bottom Line: I would engage Dell & Schaefer, and specifically Mr. Jay P. Symonds, for any legal needs; especially any issues with Short/Long Term Disability with The Hartford or any of their kind.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

Request a free legal consultation: Call 800-682-8331 or Email Us