Legal Fee Tracker: Law firms line up in Baltimore bridge collapse cases
By David Thomas and Mike Scarcella
Sept 26 (Reuters) -Litigation over the catastrophic collapse of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge has begun in earnest, after the state of Maryland, the U.S. Justice Department, victims' families and others lodged new civil claims against the owner and operator of the cargo ship that struck the bridge in March 2024.
Billions of dollars are on the line for taxpayers and for ship owner Grace Ocean Pte Ltd and operator Synergy Marine Group in the Maryland case alone. Lawyers have a stake too, of course: Contract disclosures by Maryland state agencies show how private contingency fee lawyers could secure more than a hundred million dollars if the state achieves a major recovery.
Maryland tapped Mark Lanier's Lanier Law Firm, Kelley Drye & Warren, Gulf Coast firm Liskow & Lewis, Partridge LLC, and local counsel Downs Ward Bender Herzog & Kintigh for its case, which alleges that the disaster was preventable and that Grace Ocean and Synergy are liable.
Maryland's fee agreement grants the law firms a percentage of any recovery that is based on the size and timing of a settlement or judgment, and is structured so that they would receive a smaller proportion as the amount increases.
For example, a hypothetical $500 million settlement on the eve of trial would put the lawyers in line to receive $83 million, or 16.6% of the amount. If the state wins $1 billion, the lawyers would get $143 million, or 14.3%. A $2 billion recovery would yield a 8.15% share, or $163 million. The state did not disclose any cap on the fees outside counsel can receive.
An expected $350 million insurance payment from Chubb, the bridge's insurer, would not figure into the fees and is excluded from the calculations.
"These firms are providing assistance to the OAG litigation team, and we will devote as many lawyers as necessary to effectively pursue the state’s claims in this litigation that is of such critical importance to Marylanders," Maryland attorney general spokesperson Jennifer Donelan said in a statement on Thursday.
Lanier did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Attorneys at Kelley Drye, Liskow, Partridge, and Downs Ward declined to comment.
Lawyers for Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine at law firms Duane Morris and Blank Rome did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Maryland's claim does not specify damages, but the state has estimated that it will cost $1.7 billion to repair the bridge, and said the disaster harmed its ability to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in tax and toll revenue. The collapse has forced drivers to go elsewhere, increasing the wear and tear on those roads, the state said.
The city of Baltimore has also sued the companies, and said the nearby port generated more than $70 billion in economic value in 2023 alone. The city hired two law firms, DiCello Levitt and Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky to press its claims.
Baltimore city’s legal department declined to release the city’s contract with its outside firms, saying the information was shielded from disclosure under public records law.
Baltimore County separately hired Grant & Eisenhofer and Bekman Marder Hopper Malarkey & Perlin to pursue its claims against Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine, filed on Tuesday. The county and the firms did not respond to requests for comment about their fee agreements.
The cases are pending in Maryland federal court. The Justice Department is seeking $103 million from Grace Ocean and Synergy to recover the costs of clearing the wreck of the Dali and bridge debris from the Port of Baltimore so the waterway could reopen in June.
All of the claimants face a key obstacle to winning significant damages. Citing federal maritime law, Grace Ocean and Synergy petitioned the court in April to limit their liability from the crash to the present value of the ship and its cargo, which they estimated to be just over $43 million.
- In other legal fee news, a New York lawyer who sued Dutch airline KLM for allegedly misleading customers about its environmental pledges was fined and ordered to pay legal fees after a judge found he pressed ahead with the case despite knowing his client's claims were false.
- Oracle ORCL.N is entitled to more than $58.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs from rival Rimini Street RMNI.O in their long-running copyright dispute over Rimini's alleged theft of Oracle software, a Nevada federal court said on Monday.
(Legal Fee Tracker is a weekly feature exploring attorney compensation awards and disputes in class actions, bankruptcies and other matters. Please send tips or suggestions to D.Thomas@thomsonreuters.com.)
Read More:
Legal Fee Tracker: Google, privacy lawyers clash over $217 million fee bid
Legal Fee Tracker: Clearview AI's choose-your-own-adventure privacy settlement
Legal Fee Tracker: Giuliani's bill for Trump work could go to Georgia poll workers
Reporting by David Thomas
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
