Law firm DLA Piper faces jury trial over pregnancy bias claims

By David Thomas and Mike Scarcella

April 2 (Reuters) - (Billable Hours is Reuters' weekly report on lawyers and money. Please send tips or suggestions to D.Thomas@thomsonreuters.com)

DLA Piper is poised to go to trial in federal court in Manhattan on Monday over claims that it fired an associate for seeking maternity leave, marking a rare chance for a jury to hear an employment discrimination case against a major law firm.

Anisha Mehta said she was fired in 2022 from her position as a senior associate in the firm's intellectual property group in San Francisco and New York when she was six months pregnant, less than a week after she asked for leave.

Mehta asked for an unspecified amount of damages in her 2023 lawsuit, which alleges that DLA Piper did not want to pay her at a time when the firm was drawing less legal work and under pressure from clients over billing rates.

Her lawyers at New York-based employment law firm Wigdor will face off at trial against attorneys from DLA Piper and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. DLA Piper has argued that Mehta's firing was justified, saying she was unable to perform at the level expected of a seventh-year associate.

Attorneys for Mehta, who is now a global products counsel at eBay, according to her LinkedIn profile, declined to comment. Wigdor is pursuing separate employment-related claims against two other large law firms, McDermott Will & Schulte and Troutman Pepper Locke, for different plaintiffs. Those firms have denied wrongdoing.

A spokesperson for DLA Piper did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres ruled in September that Mehta's discrimination claims under New York City and state and federal law, as well as her claims of interference and retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act, could proceed to trial.

The judge said DLA Piper's performance-based rationale for firing Mehta was "at best, in tension with other evidence in the record or, at worst, plainly contradicted by it," citing raises and bonuses Mehta had earned and her work with an important client.

Carolin Guentert, a partner at employment law firm Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight who is not involved in the case, said attorneys who claim discrimination and their employers each have reasons to prefer avoiding litigation and a potential trial.

"Lawyers know better than most how long, challenging and personal a case can be," she said, while a trial can publicly reveal a law firm's internal workings, including details about their bonus, evaluation and termination policies.

"That's all very sensitive," she said.

Guentert's firm previously brought a series of lawsuits alleging gender-related discrimination at major corporate law firms, including Jones Day, Morrison & Foerster, Proskauer Rose and others. Those lawsuits ended with settlements or voluntary dismissals.

Davis Polk & Wardwell in January 2024 prevailed in a trial before a Manhattan federal jury on claims by one of its former associates that the firm fired him in 2018 for complaining about alleged racial discrimination.

Lawyer who defended Texas book ban to mount challenge to legal fee ruling

A prominent conservative lawyer who successfully defended a Texas county’s book removals from public libraries said he intends to challenge a longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits when prevailing defendants can recover legal fees in civil rights lawsuits.

Jonathan Mitchell, a former Texas state solicitor general who was once a law clerk to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, this week asked a federal judge in Austin to deny his own bid for more than $1.3 million in fees in order to tee up an appeal that could decide the issue.

He acknowledged that a prior Supreme Court ruling from 1978 curbs such awards for defendants, and said that it should be overruled.

Mitchell successfully defended Llano County in a lawsuit brought by library patrons who accused county officials of violating their constitutional rights by removing books from libraries. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in December, leaving in place a ruling that allowed local officials to remove 17 books, including ones dealing with themes of race and LGBT identity, from its public library system.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1978 case said prevailing defendants in civil rights cases may recover fees only if the plaintiff’s claims were "frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation."

Mitchell told Reuters he will challenge the 1978 legal-fee precedent "at every opportunity until the Supreme Court overrules it." He called the decision "a relic of the Supreme Court’s 1970s approach to statutory interpretation."

Mitchell said in court filings that he billed 871 hours in the Llano County case at a proposed rate of $1,500 an hour, which he said is below the rate of a comparable lawyer, Gibson Dunn partner Allyson Ho, and the $2,000‑plus he said he would otherwise command in the Austin market.

Boies discloses $2,730 hourly rate in Google case

Litigator David Boies disclosed his current standard billing rate of $2,730 an hour this week in a new court filing seeking $147 million in legal fees as lead trial counsel in a consumer privacy case that produced a $425 million jury verdict against Alphabet’s Google.

Other top lawyers on the case disclosed even higher rates, including Susman Godfrey partner Bill Carmody at $4,000 an hour and Morgan & Morgan class action head John Yanchunis at $2,400 an hour. A federal jury in San Francisco found Google liable in September. Google has denied any wrongdoing and said it will appeal.

U.S. states seek fees after Kroger-Albertsons merger block

California and several other states are seeking $10.3 million in fees and costs after successfully blocking the Kroger‑Albertsons merger, including $5.1 million for California. A federal judge in Oregon has already ruled the states can recover their costs but has yet to determine how much.

Read More:

Lawyers in Trump cases seek to recoup fees under equal justice law

Jackson Walker inks partial deal ​with US Trustee over tainted fee claims

Lawyers flood tech expo wondering: Is AI about to devalue their time?