(Repeats story with no change to text)
By Dan Levine
SAN FRANCISCO, Mar 27 (Reuters) – Former Kleiner, Perkins,
Caufield and Byers partner Ellen Pao is not a customarily chairman who
lost when a California jury deserted her claims of gender
discrimination opposite a try collateral firm. Her lawyers
also missed out on a payday that could have reached into the
millions of dollars.
Pao sought about $16 million in mislaid salary and tens of
millions some-more in punitive indemnification in a lawsuit that captivated
Silicon Valley. Had Pao won on any of her claims, under
California law her authorised team, led by longtime San Francisco
employment lawyers Alan Exelrod and Therese Lawless, could have
sought all a fees from Kleiner.
Friday’s outcome underscores how unsure trials can be for the
lawyers who paint employees, who generally do not check by
the hour. They are customarily paid possibly a commission of any
settlement, or by seeking fees from a suspect if they win at
Pao’s 2012 lawsuit was only one among several that have been
filed opposite Silicon Valley tech companies over gender, and
employment lawyers watched a box quite closely,
filling a seats of a courtroom.
Earlier in March, Lawless filed a apart lawsuit against
Facebook Inc over allegations an worker was intimately harassed
and faced gender discrimination.
A 2013 practice hearing in a same San Francisco Superior
Court as a Pao box provides some superintendence about how most her
lawyers could have recovered had a outcome left her way.
While a cases are different, a manners for collecting fees
would have been identical in a Pao case, that finished on Friday
with a jury clearing Kleiner of gender taste and
retaliating opposite Pao for suing a firm.
Exelrod and Lawless were not immediately accessible to
comment on fees.
In a 2013 case, a lady who sued a Catholic propagandize for
gender and age taste went to hearing for some-more than a
month in San Francisco Superior Court. Among several claims, the
jury sided with her on an delinquent vacation time claim, and
awarded her about $16,000 in damages.
After a outcome her attorney, John McGuinn, told a judge
in justice filings that he worked 1,635 hours on a box from his
initial assembly with a customer by verdict, and listed his
rate during $750 per hour. One of his associates worked 794 hours at
$395 per hour.
At those rates, a sum volume for McGuinn’s group would
have surfaced $1.5 million, yet he sought reduction since of the
narrow win. The decider eventually awarded about $618,000 in fees
and costs, and a box has been appealed.
McGuinn could not immediately be reached for comment.
Exelrod, Lawless and McGuinn all have likewise long
experience as worker attorneys in San Francisco. In court
filings, McGuinn pronounced one of Exelrod’s partners has been awarded
$775 per hour in another salary case.
Kleiner’s lead counsel Lynne Hermle, of a Orrick Herrington
Sutcliffe law firm, billed about $725 per hour in 2011,
according to justice filings in a apart case.
The law expected would not concede a try collateral organisation to
seek attorneys fees from Pao, who has a right to interest the
verdict. Kleiner, however, could find payment for costs
associated with a lawsuit, such as consultant declare payments,
deposition losses and justice filing fees.
A Kleiner mouthpiece declined to criticism on either it
would find costs from Pao.
Trials are mostly good constructed multi-media events, with
videos, slip presentations and thousands of pages of
transcripts, and a Pao box was no exception.
James Brown, who represented a Catholic propagandize during trial
and was not concerned in a Pao case, pronounced costs in a Pao case
could be between $100,000 and $200,000, depending on a number
(Editing by Peter Henderson and Grant McCool)