A large settlement and a substantial number of recorded hours do not explain, by themselves, why a particular fee should come out of the fund.
Judge James Donato rejected consumer lawyers’ US$85-million fee request in the Google Play litigation for now, finding insufficient billing detail and questioning attribution of the settlement benefit where other lawyers also contributed.
The October 15 order permits an amended request for fees and expenses by November 13, 2026. It is not a final decision that counsel will receive no compensation.
Time recorded and work explained are different
A total number of hours measures volume. It does not necessarily reveal the task performed, its purpose or its connection to the result.
For lawyers seeking payment from a common fund, that connection matters because the award affects the amount available to others.
A reviewer needs enough information to understand the work without reconstructing the entire litigation from broad descriptions.
The practical issue begins well before the fee application: how work is recorded while the file is active.
Parallel proceedings complicate attribution
Where several groups pursue related claims, the final settlement may reflect overlapping efforts.
That creates a separate question from whether counsel worked diligently. The fee request must explain the contribution for which payment is sought.
Useful records can distinguish shared work, independent work and activities that advanced the particular recovery.
That does not require pretending every litigation step has an easily measurable dollar value. It requires a coherent account of its purpose and significance.
What Canadian firms can take from the ruling
The U.S. order does not prescribe Canadian fee-approval standards. Its management lesson is nevertheless practical.
Contemporaneous descriptions should allow another person to understand what happened and why. Firms should also preserve the record connecting their work to significant developments.
Attempting to supply that account retrospectively can be difficult, especially on long-running matters involving multiple teams.
The next stage remains open
The court has invited a renewed application. Counsel now have an opportunity to address the deficiencies identified.
The accurate headline is therefore an inadequately supported request rejected - not a permanent denial of fees.
A persuasive fee application explains the work’s contribution, not simply its duration.
Related coverage: DeviantArt Seeks Crowell’s Disqualification in AI Copyright Case.
Sources: Reuters: Google Play fee request ruling · Official settlement information and documents .