Seriously, we have nothing against Quinn Emanuel – we’re not litigators, so we’ve never dealt with them, and we’re terrible about capitalization in casual correspondence. For all we know, they’re just as good as the American Lawyer claimed in a glowing piece a few years ago.
They just seem to have a knack for stepping in piles of “administrative” doggy doody. We’ve written about the firm’s problems with former client ConnectU. Twice. And we’ve written about the firm being forced to eat 6,000 hours because it couldn’t do a proper conflicts check.
This time, though, QE is the one complaining about fees. The firm is suing (complaint here) uber headhunter Major Lindsey & Africa over fees from Quinn’s hiring of two Latham IP partners: David Nelson (Stanford BS ’87, Northwestern JD ’92) and Sean Pak (MIT BS ’95, MIT M.Eng ’96, Harvard JD ’99).
QE doesn’t dispute the 25% commission owed on Nelson. The issue is that Major Lindsey is claiming a commission on Pak and any subsequent Latham associate who decides to join Quinn Emanuel. According to the firm, Major Lindsey’s claim hinges on an amended retainer agreement that purports to be deemed accepted by QE’s continuing with the recruiting process (despite the existing agreement between the firm and the agency, the prior course of dealing, and general contract law).
We’re not talking about peanuts here, either. Quinn Emanuel had a great 2008. It was one of the few firms that saw significant PPP growth, finishing the year up 11% to $3.3 million. That’s a commission of more than $800,000, plus whatever associates follow if Major Lindsey’s reading is somehow upheld.
Related posts:
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Let's be clear about one thing – even though QE is on the plaintiff side of them, this is just another example of this overrated law firm. Their one job is to get their litigation right, which they don't, and now they can't even get a simple retainer agreement correct. If they can't get the basics right, what else is there?
Let's be clear about one thing – even though QE is on the plaintiff side of them, this is just another example of this overrated law firm. Their one job is to get their litigation right, which they don't, and now they can't even get a simple retainer agreement correct. If they can't get the basics right, what else is there?
I'm a little more sympathetic this time. MLA is trying to take a really sleazy shortcut with this "deemed accepted by performance" nonsense. That's no way to revise a set of negotiated terms (although firms clearly have the leverage on retainer agreement negotiations). It's also hard to justify MLA's claims for $800,000+ for a guy they didn't even represent.
I'm a little more sympathetic this time. MLA is trying to take a really sleazy shortcut with this "deemed accepted by performance" nonsense. That's no way to revise a set of negotiated terms (although firms clearly have the leverage on retainer agreement negotiations). It's also hard to justify MLA's claims for $800,000+ for a guy they didn't even represent.