As some commenters point out on an earlier post, a Hennepin County jury yesterday awarded $1.6 million to a lawyer, Brian Williams, who sued his old firm, Heins Mills & Olson in Minneapolis, over how it divided a massive fee.
The firm collected a $103 million fee in a securities fraud case, of which firm partners Sam Heins and Stacey Mills (who are also husband and wife) pocketed collectively $80 million. Williams, who already received $4.5 million, sought more from both his ex-firm and former partners Heins and Mills. The jury sided with Williams.
Both sides tried to spin the result their way. The lawyer for the firm pointed out that Williams sought much more than $1.5 million he got. However, any case where an individual walks away with more than $1 million is hard not to score as a win for the plaintiff.
We have not covered this case much -- primarily because the Strib has been on top of it like white on rice. (So much so that that the judge actually postponed the trial at one point due to the "unflattering" publicity.) Here's a link to the Strib story on the verdict.
Showing posts with label Heins Mills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heins Mills. Show all posts
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
How much pre-trial coverage is too much?
Hennepin County District Judge Denise Reilly took the unusual step of postponing a trial because too much information about the case was contained in a Star Tribune article about the case.
The article, published Monday, reported that two former lawyers with the firm of Heins Mills and Olson filed suit over the way the firm distributed $103 million in legal fees from a nationwide class-action suit against AOL Time Warner.
The suit said that lawyers Samuel Heins and Stacey Mills got $48 million and $32 million, respectively, several times more than was received by the other lawyers who worked on the case. The suit to be heard before Reilly was filed by one of the lawyers who claimed to be short-changed.
William Pentelovitch, representing Heins Mills, said the article went beyond the facts of the pending lawsuit, citing background information that could prevent prospective jurors from being impartial. Reilly agreed.
Should newspapers be restricted in what they can report about a case before it goes to trial? It seems that substantiated, relevant data shouldn’t have to be embargoed for the benefit of one or the other side in a lawsuit.
The article, published Monday, reported that two former lawyers with the firm of Heins Mills and Olson filed suit over the way the firm distributed $103 million in legal fees from a nationwide class-action suit against AOL Time Warner.
The suit said that lawyers Samuel Heins and Stacey Mills got $48 million and $32 million, respectively, several times more than was received by the other lawyers who worked on the case. The suit to be heard before Reilly was filed by one of the lawyers who claimed to be short-changed.
William Pentelovitch, representing Heins Mills, said the article went beyond the facts of the pending lawsuit, citing background information that could prevent prospective jurors from being impartial. Reilly agreed.
Should newspapers be restricted in what they can report about a case before it goes to trial? It seems that substantiated, relevant data shouldn’t have to be embargoed for the benefit of one or the other side in a lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
