Son of world’s richest banker challenged US law firm over $35m legal bill
Alberto Safra survived a bitter fight over his father’s $23bn fortune. Then the legal bill arrived, all $35m (£26m) of it.
Safra, son of Brazilian billionaire Joseph Safra, now deceased, was billed over $35m for less than two years of work over a ‘bitter multibillion-dollar estate feud’ and one of the largest inheritance battles in history.
He instructed US law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, which, along with multiple cross-border issues, managed five high-stakes arbitrations at the London Court of International Arbitration.
The battle concerned the $23bn estate of his late father, once the world’s richest banker, who died in 2020. He claimed his father was suffering from cognitive impairment when he altered his will to disinherit him in 2019.
The legal dispute concluded when the Safra family announced an amicable settlement.
WilmerHale billed Safra $35,343,213.96 (£26,289,166.12) for work between September 2022 and July 2024. Safra applied to the English High Court to avoid paying the remaining $18.9m.
Safra was represented by Quillon Law, who instructed Nicholas Bacon KC and Simon Teasdale of 4 New Square Chambers for the dispute against the law firm over fees.
A judgment handed down on Wednesday by Cost Judge Leonard showed the firm’s rates ranged from $1,400 to over $2,000 per hour, and by 2024, the top partner’s rate hit $2,095 per hour.
While associates were billing between $715 and $1,055 per hour.
One partner, John Trenor, was recorded working over 17 hours a day on certain occasions. On a single day in June 2023, the legal team billed 130.3 hours, costing Safra $162,312.
On a single day in June 2023, the legal team billed 130.3 hours, costing Safra $162,312
As the case involved a team working across New York and London, the ‘London costs’ included significant travel and operational expenses, including $11,367 for a single London-to-NY airfare and $6,037 for London accommodation for a partner’s visit.
The bill included thousands of dollars for late-night secretarial support and office ‘takeaways’ meals for the London-based team during high-intensity periods.
WilmerHale had argued that Safra signed a contentious business agreement, which is harder to challenge because it essentially locks in the fees as a contract.
However, the judge ruled that it was a standard retainer, not a contentious business agreement, because the firm had the “open-ended” power to unilaterally raise hourly rates.
WilmerHale had also increased rates twice during the retainer.
It was noted that the firm failed to properly notify the client of these increases as they happened. “I have not previously encountered a case in which such levels of costs accrued with such limited information being provided to the client,” he stated.
The judge refused the law firm’s request to make Safra pay the remaining $18.9m, ruling that he will now review the time records to decide what was reasonable and proportionate.
WilmerHale was contacted for comment.