A&O slammed for "shocking" costs

  • Print
  • Comments (21)

Readers' comments (21)

  • Costs

    The 5-day trial length makes it quite clear that there were not terribly many issues in dispute in the proceedings. In that case, Allen & Overy's costs are so disproportionate to the issues being litigated that those involved should be ashamed of their management of the matter.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Costs

    A&O's use of the term "tiny fraction" in its spokesman's response, merely underlines the firm's inability to grasp the concept of proportionality.
    A&O should have spent some of the immense man hours it clocked-up considering their client's business rather than its own. I personally can't imagine any legal issue requiring that amount of research, the average adult could comprehend (from a cold start) the time-space continuum in far far less time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Costs

    Maybe Taylor Wessings' client had no confidence in the case? That could explain the 5 to 1 difference!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr Justice Floyd

    Those are some fairly strong expressions by Mr Justice Floyd. Christopher Floyd is not someone who is given to extreme statements, he is normally quite conservative and not strongly extrovert in the way he expresses himself.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • costs

    Trainees and paralegals do what they're told. Like the sorcerer's apprentice, they'll carry on doing it until they're told to stop. If the hours are high it's because of the lack of management.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Big Company in Big Cases Cost Big Money Shocker"

    Does anyone sense that the Anonymous posters might be from rival law firms? They purport to know a lot about this case considering that they weren't involved. Given that RIM won the case, one can only assume that they were very happy with the efforts of A&O's poor, overworked associates (one's heart bleeds). RIM can hardly have failed to notice that they were paying a goodly amount for A&O's services, but then they are a big company and presumably wanted to win. So where exactly is the news?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Aren't we all missing the point a bit?

    If we're going to re-write the headline, surely those downtrodden associates at A&O should be hailed as heroes for saving the legal profession's favourite business efficiency tool?! Or have the ex-lawyers at the Lawyer been released from their email shackles? ...Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Big money, big case

    Well, it's pretty obvious the judge wasn't too impressed with A&O, whatever RIM might think...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A&O COSTS

    Interestingly, if one takes the two associates referred to - their hours total around 4500, which equates to £444.44/hour as the associate rate. If one assumes that say 1500 hours p.a. were recorded this implies a billing total for each associate of £666,666 . OK so I only got this by rounding the hours down to 4500.......Is there a dark force at play here, or maybe this is where the 66% figure came from?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Costs

    Entertaining reading, for sure, but you can't ignore the fact that, though Taylor Wessing racked up a fifth of A&O's costs, they lost the case. You don't win major commercial litigation by counting the pennies.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (21)