State agency seeks attorney fees from LSAT administrator

A state agency is seeking more than $500,000 in attorney fees from the administrator of the LSAT in a federal case involving a violated consent decree.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District ruled in March that the Law School Admission Council repeatedly violated a 2014 consent decree that required it to better handle accommodation requests from test takers with disabilities. Spero agreed to extend until 2020 the decree that had been scheduled to expire last May.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing conducted the legal work that led to the contempt finding and is seeking to be compensated for the work. In a July 13 filing, the state agency requested $529,341 in attorney fees and $4,077 in expenses. Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Law School Admission Council Inc., 12-CV01830 (N.D. Cal., filed April 12, 2012).

The agency wrote in its filing, "The contempt motion, brought by DFEH on its own, achieved excellent results and DFEH should be provided with full compensation."

The Law School Admission Council said in a statement the state agency was seeking more than half a million dollars for work on a single motion.

"We would certainly prefer to settle this matter on fair and reasonable terms without the need for additional litigation, but as a nonprofit organization we cannot agree to an unreasonable fee that is far beyond what is allowed under the terms of the consent decree," the council said.

"The DFEH's unreasonable demand would reduce resources that would otherwise go to support candidates" who take the LSAT and seek to apply to law school, the council statement continued. "We are committed to resolving this issue, and we will continue to work with all parties to improve our services to candidates, with a particular emphasis on candidates with disabilities."

Spero previously ruled the department is entitled to fees and costs pursuant to the consent decree. The department said it would also be seeking fees for its work on its motion for fees and expenses, with exact figures to be provided in its reply memorandum.

The state agency said in its filing that its request for fees and expenses was reasonable. The department said it was seeking compensation for 938.6 hours for one senior attorney, two mid-level attorneys and one law fellow.

The hourly rates sought were: $850 for senior attorney Mari Mayeda, $425 for mid-level attorneys Joni Carrasco and Irina Trasovan, and $290 for Kaitlyn Toyama.

"Approximately 832.8 hours were eliminated from the request for those four timekeepers for which contemporaneous time records were maintained," the agency wrote.