Image 01 Image 03

Gibson’s Bakery awarded over $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and expenses against Oberlin College

Gibson’s Bakery awarded over $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and expenses against Oberlin College

Added on top of previous $25 million judgment

The Court has just ruled on the request by Gibson’s Bakery for attorney’s fees and costs against Oberlin College on top of the $25 million judgment.

For background on the attorney’s fees issue, see these posts:

The Court’s Order (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) provides for an award of $6,271,395.00 in attorney’s fees, and $294,136.79 in expenses, for a total of $6,565,531.


Here are some key findings (emphasis added):

$290 Hourly Rate

“Plaintiffs presented evidence of hourly rates for their attorneys and paralegal/support staff that ranged from $675.00 per hour on the high end and $115.00 per hour on the low end, creating an average hourly rate of $395.00 per hour. Defendants’ average hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals/support staff ranged from $400.00 per hour on the high end and $100.00 on the low end, creating an average hourly rate of $250.00 per hour. The Court hereby finds that a reasonable average hourly rate in this community, given the complexity of the issues and experience of the attorneys handling the case, is $290.00 per hour.”

14,417 Billable Hours Reasonable

“In sum, Plaintiffs tallied 14,417 hours of billed hours in this matter. At the hearing Plaintiffs argued that all of their hours were reasonable, and referenced the fact that Defendants’ counsel – who did not bear the burden of proof – tallied 15,626 hours (1,209 more billed hours than Plaintiffs’ counsel).

Defendants argued that Defendants’ counsel’s hours were not relevant to the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hours simply because Defendants’ counsel was not seeking to have their attorneys’ fees awarded. The Court fails to understand the distinction, particularly given the fact that both Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees are subject to the reasonableness standard of Prof. Cond. R. 1.5(a). The Court’s lodestar analysis is not limited to a comparison with Defendants’ fee bills, it just serves as a helpful reference point to the lodestar analysis because Defendants’ counsel prepared for and tried the same case….

Though the case was not filed until November 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s invoices reflect that this case began for Plaintiffs in April of 2017. After the complaint was filed, nearly every phase of the case was vigorously contested, including the trial which encompassed twenty-four days over the course of nearly six weeks. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billing invoices are reflective of, and consistent with, a case of this magnitude. Furthermore, the Court finds that due to the nature of claims at issue in this case, it is not possible to separate the time spent on recoverable punitive damage claims (or related litigation expenses for experts) from non-recoverable punitive damage claims. See Bittner, at 145. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s 14,417 billable
hours were hours reasonably expended on the case.”

$4,180,930 Lodestar

“Applying the above, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reasonable hourly rate ($290.00 per hour) times the number of hours reasonably expended (14,417) equates to a lodestar amount of $4,180,930.”

1.5X Multiplier

“The parties strongly debated the appropriateness of a multiplier. Plaintiffs’ counsel believes the lodestar should be multiplied 2 to 3 times, which would result in a total fee between $8,361,860 and $12,542,790 (using the Court’s lodestar amount in Paragraph C above). Plaintiffs’ argument for enhancement lies in the application of factors (1 ), (4), (7), and (8).

Defendants believe the Court should not utilize a multiplier because the relevant 1.5(a) factors are subsumed by the lodestar analysis and based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010)….

Here, the Court has determined that not all of the factors are entirely subsumed within the lodestar calculation precluding enhancement. Here, factor (1) – the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, while a component of the lodestar calculation, it was not entirely subsumed by it. The case presented extraordinary challenges for the plaintiffs. Similarly, factor (7) – the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services – was a component of the lodestar calculation. But when considered with other relevant factors such as factor (3) – the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services, factor (4)- the amount involved and the results obtained; and factor (8) – whether the fee is fixed or contingent, the Court believes a multiplier of one and a half (1.5) times the lodestar calculation is appropriate and necessary.

The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs’ should be awarded $6,271,395.00 in reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

Litigation Expenses

In addition to attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs’ also seek $404,139.22 in litigation expenses. Defendants and their expert believe Plaintiffs’ proposed expenses are excessive and that several categories are not properly includable as expenses. Defendants believe the proper amount of litigation expenses total $241,247.84. This Court agrees that the expenses should be limited, albeit not to the extent requested by Defendants….

Therefore, in addition to attorneys’ fees of $6,271,395.00, Plaintiffs are hereby awarded the above litigation expenses, which total $294,136.79. In addition court costs are assessed to the Defendants….”

Case Closed

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but the final substantive words in the Order were: “Case Closed.”

Bet the Judge was happy to write those words.

So How Does The Attorney’s Fees Award Work?

The Judge’s decision does not address how the award of attorney’s fees works as between the Gibsons and their lawyers.

The lawyer’s took the case on a 40% contingent fee, which on the $25 million damages judgment is $10 million.

How this calculation will work? My assumption is that the attorney’s fees awarded by the court are not subject to the contingent fee. So if and when the judgment is collected, and putting aside interest on the judgment, the lawyers get $10 million out of the $25 million, and the Gibson’s get the roughly $6.3 million attorney fee award. So the Gibson’s walk away with $15 million on the judgment and plus the attorney’s fees, totaling between $21-22 million. If I can confirm this, I’ll update.

[Featured Image: Four generations of Gibsons after Jury Verdict][Photo Credit Legal Insurrection Foundation]


Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – Order Awarding Attoney’s Fees and Expenses by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


NOTE: Our trial coverage is a project of the Legal Insurrection Foundation. Your support helps make this type of coverage possible.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


smalltownoklahoman | July 17, 2019 at 3:43 pm

Another big win for Gibson and it’s team! Money well earned too by their lawyers!

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to smalltownoklahoman. | July 18, 2019 at 12:04 am

    Oberlin would have to be insane to appeal this. Therefore, I predict that is exactly what they will so.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to smalltownoklahoman. | July 19, 2019 at 7:41 am

    I have been on Waterloo University campus for several days. I brought this case up and everyone I talked too had bought the lie that Oberlin College was a victim in the case. This is another example of Black Liars Matter.

    In my opinion, Carmen Twillie Ambar’s repeated false claims about this case have further damaged Gibson’s reputation on a national scale.

    I really think that Oberlin College deserves to be sued again for continuing to defame Gibsons. Maybe they could win an even bigger judgement the second time.

I can hardly wait for the email blast to alumni from el Presidente of Oberlin explaining this ruling.

I wonder how Oberlin can figure out a way to fund raise off this. It seems the left now use every cause, every bit of news, every stupid move they make, as an excuse to fund raise.

I also wonder why anyone would bother to give Oberlin any money, given how poor their stewardship of those funds have been.

Great news. This will encourage attorneys across the nation to defend the likes of the Gibsons.

    MajorWood in reply to | July 17, 2019 at 4:48 pm

    And that is exactly why Oberlin spent $5M trying to win at all costs. They had to win once they had engaged. This case could almost be a stand alone chapter in “The Art of War.”

    And since they have refused to acknowledge their mistake, they will make it again .

      Valerie in reply to MajorWood. | July 17, 2019 at 7:49 pm

      They would have won if they had issued a gracious apology, even after the demonstrations and cancelling the contract.

      Instead, they decided to deploy their asymmetric position to destroy that business.

        MajorWood in reply to Valerie. | July 17, 2019 at 8:22 pm

        >> Instead, they decided to deploy their asymmetric position to destroy that business. <<

        And these are the questions that need to be answered. Who decided, and when, and why? Was it a strategy devised early and played out, or did it morph into other stuff as opportunities presented themselves. I harp on this because the problem cannot be fixed until the problem is identified. It wouldn't surprise me if Krislov becomes the whipping boy her since he is already gone, but there is still a lot of blame to be shared among those still present. And I hope that holy hell is raised for anyone who leaves with an extra penny in their pocket. So basically, if no one is identified, then they don't know what to fix, and the problem will then persist. At least the next victim will know who to get as their lawyer. 😉

    Yes! Drag $5.6 million through a courthouse and you will attract atention.

This might leave a mark on Oberlin’s check book.

Hey Aladin:

Do the math! Over $30,000,000 for (3) bottles of wine … that’s over $10,000,000 per bottle! Must have been damn good stuff!

    Tom Servo in reply to walls. | July 17, 2019 at 4:49 pm

    Every Bottle was full of Sweet, Sweet, SJW Tears!

    PostLiberal in reply to walls. | July 18, 2019 at 4:41 pm

    An irony here is that Aladin made a written admission to the court that racism was not involved in his being arrested. If Oberlin College had similarly made a written statement that racism was not involved in the arrest of Aladin and the two other Oberlin College students, there would have been no lawsuit.

Court costs- what do they consist of? Judges and juries time? Courtroom rental? I’m curious. Anyone know?

I tend to think of the judgement as a charge to the university for attempting to intimidate the community of the town into allowing any lawless act by students of the university. Gibson’s was just the vessel chosen by the university to show the town what the university could do to them if all the others did not allow the students free reign in lawless behavior with no consequence to them.

    Silvertree in reply to kyrrat. | July 17, 2019 at 11:50 pm

    This is an important point. In various comment sections under the many articles about this case in the local paper (Elyria CT), many locals have expressed frustration that the Oberlin police are so lenient when it comes to student misbehavior (shoplifting, wild loud parties lasting all night, broken bottles in streets and yards, using neighbors’ yards for toilets, unkempt student apartment buildings, etc.)

    In the first Gibson’s protest, the students choked the sidewalks and harassed people verbally, very vulgarly, who tried to go into the bakery. They even actively blocked people at times from walking along the sidewalk, and physically prevented photographers from taking pictures. Why was all this tolerated by the police?

    Furthermore, the extremely loud ghetto music played at the protest, with its pounding angry beat, was very upsetting and disturbing to people as well that day: it lasted into the night I believe. The business next door did not take in one dollar that day. Where were the police?

    I guess it’s like a “company town”. And the owners’ kids, the students, were so outraged that their colleagues couldn’t just take whatever they wanted from the “company store”…. how dare the lowly servants try to protect store property!

    Hmmm……I wonder who owes their soul to the company store now?

I don’t understand the case. Mr. Justice Milhouse said the statement “Gibson’s is racist” is not defamatory. Yet the Trial Court ruled the statement Gibson’s is racist was ruled per-se defamatory by the Court.

Is Mr. Justice Milhouse’s opinion grounds for appeal?

    there is a reason some of us ignore that idiot.
    wish admins would enable bbPress Ignore User plugin or similar.

      MajorWood in reply to dmacleo. | July 17, 2019 at 5:10 pm

      IIRC, Mr/Ms Justice Milhouse recused himself/herself around day 6 of the trial when faced with the prospects that reality was once again going to Trump fantasy.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to dystopia. | July 18, 2019 at 12:21 am

    “Is Justice Milhouse’s opinion grounds for appeal.”

    Anything can be grounds for appeal, but that would not be a successful grounds.

The $10,000,000 question:

Will Twillie appeal the verdict …. or not?

    MajorWood in reply to walls. | July 17, 2019 at 5:04 pm

    I work with drug addicts. These people are addicted to a cause. The outlook is not good.

    I see two directions for Oberlin. Business as usual into a slow death spiral, or, drop EVERYTHING SJW related, including all of the made-up studies programs, get rid of the political faculty and admins, and become a leading college once again like they were in the 60’s and 70’s. Today’s odds are “business as usual,” 20:1.

    And because they can’t let it go, I would not be surprised to see them back in court within a year if the “learned experiences” mantra keeps making appearances.

    Popcorn anyone?

      jb4 in reply to MajorWood. | July 17, 2019 at 9:28 pm

      MajorWood your first choice is the high risk, high reward one. My hunch is that Oberlin could actually pull it off, as I think enough people, including what would be called the traditional liberals of the past, are sick and tired enough of these SJW, snowflake, intolerant places everywhere that do not truly educate students that Oberlin might be surprised at the response it might get (outside of the liberal media). That said, I agree that “business as usual” seems more likely, with a gradual decline of the college. What happens might depend on President Ambar – does she have the capability to really lead. I hope so, as a search for a replacement to lead a reformation of the college would not be timely.

        ObieWanKanObie in reply to jb4. | July 18, 2019 at 3:51 pm

        She’s spinning this pretty hard, using the “student free speech” angle. I think that will be the basis of their appeal. Of course, this was not at all about student free speech. It was about what the college did.

        The only possible connection to free speech in this case was the student senate resolution; and if Oberlin is wise, they will prohibit the student senate from using official Oberlin stationary or email in the future.

        A relevant issue that no one talks about is that the protests and defamation took place OFF CAMPUS. I can see using the “safety of the students” excuse for an on-campus event, but not for something that takes place off campus. Did they send Oberlin’s security guards to the protests? Or only administrators with bullhorns? And I’d love to know where the heck that bullhorn came from. Was it Raimondo’s personal property? Did the college supply it to her? Did she borrow it from somebody? Sorry, but if you get out in front of bunch of college kids and you’re carrying a bullhorn, you are the defacto leader of those students. True or not, that’s how you’ll be perceived by both the public and the mob. If Oberlin is wise, they will prohibit administrators from using college-owned bullhorns at off-campus events.

          Silvertree in reply to ObieWanKanObie. | July 18, 2019 at 10:38 pm

          This is such a great point. It seems to me quite dangerous actually, to have this chaperone kind of thing. It makes everything murky, as far as who is in charge and who is responsible. And seriously, how is the dean supposed to keep things from getting violent? That is way too much responsibility on her. The police were considering calling in the county riot squad, for goodness’ sake! The students should know: if they go off campus to protest, they will go it alone and face whatever music the real world plays for them.

          One obvious difficulty is that as a student it’s easy to feel like Oberlin town is just an extension of the campus. Almost all these kids are coming from other places and cultures (face it, Manhattan is not small-town Ohio), and it’s all kind of blurry for them, I suspect, especially for the first year. Various campus buildings are placed around the main square, which is a park owned by the College but open to the public to walk through. The south side of that square is a main shopping street where Gibson’s is, not far from the OC Conservatory building and also the campus bookstore.

          Of course intellectually students know there is a boundary between campus and town, but maybe they don’t always make the leap emotionally. Students are just everywhere in the town, and many businesses specifically tailor their offerings to cater to students, like Gibson’s has always done. I can still remember that feeling as a student, crossing the invisible barrier into the everyday world. One minute you are in class talking about the relations of the Spanish explorers with the natives of South America, the next you are going into a store to buy a toothpaste. I’m not at all sure that most students make that leap very well inwardly. The lackadaisical attitude towards shoplifting would seem indicate a certain lack of awareness, yes?

          One minute you discuss how the Spanish robbed and oppressed the natives, the next you go do some robbing and oppressing of your own?

          Hopefully the new mandatory course they have started for the freshmen I mean freshwomyn I mean first-year students, called “Community 101”, will help orient everyone better. I’m sure being a national disgrace and having to pay some 30 million in “reparations” will help also.

          ObieWanKanObie in reply to ObieWanKanObie. | July 19, 2019 at 12:13 pm

          Well said, Silvertree. But I think the line is very clear. students certainly ought to know that once they cross the street to go shopping, they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. It should not take a “Community 101” course to teach this.

          I don’t care if the students were just sitting in class learning about how the Spanish conquistadors civilized the savages by rightfully put an end to their industrial-scale human sacrifice in South America, or if (far more likely) they were learning how to use lawfare, stage protests, and be good communists; the best way to learn about the law is to see it enforced. What is so puzzling to me is that the ADMINISTRATION (not the students) is blurring the line here.

          Raimondo and company should have known better than to get involved in anything off campus. My guess is that they had no idea that what they were doing was defamatory.

          Not letting law enforcement do its thing before rushing to judgement tells me that OC supports lawlessness–including shoplifting, etc. Worse, OC was actively engaging in the soft bigotry of low expectations–and they misunderestimated the cost of doing so. Can you imagine the protests happening if the shoplifters had been of European or Jewish descent? I think Oberlin would have sided with the Gibsons if that had been the case.

          There is no need for “Community 101” (although I do applaud the effort). Adding a mandatory course for incoming freshmen is a typically academic way of handling this. But having high expectations of civilized behavior and enforcing the law when and where civilization is lacking are far more fair and effective ways to educate.

          Silvertree in reply to ObieWanKanObie. | July 19, 2019 at 4:37 pm

          Yes, you are so right. It is incredible to me that Oberlin College is letting its students rob local businesses blind, with no consequences!

      Dr. Lonny Shavelson found that 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused in childhood.

      Post USA Civil War alcoholism was called “the soldiers disease”

      Addiction is a symptom of PTSD. Look it up.

    jb4 in reply to walls. | July 17, 2019 at 9:14 pm

    I expect that it is the Board of Trustees decision to appeal or not, advised by President Ambar and the lawyers. I would love to be a fly on the wall at that Board meeting, but predict they will not appeal. Simply put, appealing could eventually cost them more in additional application and enrollment problems than they might gain from appealing.

The lawyer’s took the case on a 40% contingent fee

Is this routine?

    Tom Servo in reply to tom_swift. | July 17, 2019 at 4:51 pm

    I don’t know if routine is the right word, but in a case of this size and this nature, I don’t think it’s unusual. The Gibson’s Legal Team took a huge risk, because if they would have lost the case, they would have been paid $0.00 for 2 1/2 years of work.

    PostLiberal in reply to tom_swift. | July 17, 2019 at 5:07 pm

    It seems a bit high to me. My HOA sued a contractor, using an attorney on a contingency fee. The attorney’s contingency fee was one third- 33.33%- of the judgement. We won. In any event, the Gibso’s attorneys spent a lot more time on the case than our attorney did on our case. Higher contingency with higher risk, perhaps.

    Our attorney was very upfront regarding what we could get and not get according to the law. He did not promise us the moon. What he told us we could get, we got. While I don’t like what attorneys charge, all experience I have had with attorneys is that they are very upfront about what you can and can’t get. No bullshit. And they deliver.

The ruling sounds fair to me… for now. Should the College continue trying to bury the Gibsons in sore loser tactics, maybe this should be further expanded at a later date.

Did I call this, or what?

The Friendly Grizzly | July 17, 2019 at 6:40 pm

Has Mr. Chief Justice Rags weighed in?

‘Tis a thing of beauty.

Not average rates unless the number of billing employees/lawyers gets input into the math.

Richard Aubrey | July 17, 2019 at 10:07 pm

It’s been said this verdict and the awards have put the fear of God into the various folks Lin Wood is suing on behalf of the Covington kids, Nick Sandmann in particular.
There is an attorney who is starting some version of class action lawsuits against universities which have screwed over guys through lack of due process in sex cases.
He may not be alone for long.

I suspect that this whole situation will be a multi-decade case study for:
a) Law schools – Learning how to do this right
b) Public Relations – Learning how to do this wrong
c) SJW – Confirming evidence of __________________ injustice, racism, etc., etc. and, thus, continuing to learn nothing.

    RandomCrank in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 19, 2019 at 5:59 pm

    It will be a case study at what’s left of journalism schools. The case was right out of the libel textbooks, and this will be used as an example.

Oberlin long ago gave up even the pretense of being a “college.” They’re a Radical Left Wing Indoctrination Camp and any parent who sends their children there must recognize what exactly they are paying for.

On July 15th the Defendants made a motion to “Stay the Execution of Judgement” per Rule 62(A). Business as usual or the first move towards Appeal?

    LKB in reply to NGDGU. | July 18, 2019 at 1:06 pm

    My guess is that Oberlin wants the Court to stay execution pending appeal and not require it to post a supersedeas bond. Hopefully LI will do a post on what their argument is.

    My understanding from an Ohio colleague of mine is that it would be VERY unusual for an Ohio court to grant such a request, especially for a defendant that has the wherewithal to post a supersedeas bond.

    The fun will begin 30 days after the judgment was entered, in that the Gibsons could start executing on Oberlin assets (or, if they are feeling especially saucy, start by levying on Raimundo’s personal assets). But my suspicion is that unless the Oberlin board of trustees decides to cut their losses, they will just post a supersedeas bond (for which a surety would charge them about $5 million (nonrefundable), plus a pledge of assets worth more than the face amount of the judgement).

      jb4 in reply to LKB. | July 18, 2019 at 2:23 pm

      If I understand you correctly, appealing then means that if Oberlin loses the appeal it is out (extra) the estimated $5M surety bond plus a large amount of additional legal fees, plus perhaps Gibson’s additional legal costs. Is there an inference that to appeal under these circumstances they have to be pretty sure they can win? Also, it has been mentioned many times in various places that the trial judge was meticulously careful throughout the trial. Call me “puzzled”, especially since I believe dragging this out could end up costing them more in extra applications and enrollment problems.

        LKB in reply to jb4. | July 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm

        Unless Oberlin gets a stay pending appeal w/o a supersedeas bond (from what Ohio attorneys tell me, that’s very unlikely), it will have three choices:
        (1) Post a supersedeas bond and appeal. As indicated before, that’ll cost them a fee to the surety of 15-20% of the face amount of the bond, which they don’t get back even if they prevail on appeal. And, of course, if they lose the appeal, then they also still have to pay the full amount of the judgment plus accrued postjudgment interest, not to mention all their attorneys fees for the appeal. All of this could easily add another $7-8 million to Oberlin’s tab.
        (2) Appeal without posting a supersedeas bond. In this event, the Gibsons are free to start executing on Raimondo/Oberlin’s nonexempt property immediately, and the fact that Oberlin is appealing can’t stop that. (If Oberlin prevails on appeal, then it gets back the money realized from the execution.)
        I’d love to see video of sheriffs/bailiffs showing up at the offices of Raimondo, Reed, Jones, Ambar, the Student Senate, the Multicultural Resource Center, etc., and cleaning them out, but rationally the Gibson’s attorneys would likely instead just seize Oberlin’s bank / securities accounts and put them in escrow.
        (3) Settle with the Gibsons. This makes the most sense, which of course means Oberlin won’t do it.

Re: how any recovery would be split between the Gibsons and their attorneys, that will depend on what those parties agreed to in their fee agreement.

There are myriad ways to structure these, but let’s look at the most common methods (I’ve been doing business contingency fee litigation for almost 30 years).

For our discussion purposes, let’s assume that Oberlin either voluntarily pays the face amount of the award (call it $31.5 million — $25 million damages + $6.25 million fees + $250k expenses) or else the Gibsons’ attorneys execute on Oberlin assets and collect that sum that way. Assume further that the Gibsons’ attorneys actually incurred $500k in out of pocket expenses (i.e., not just taxable costs/expenses, but other things like travel expenses that might not be a taxable cost/expense).

(1) First approach: “Net Recovery”

Under this method (probably the most common approach used in business contingency fee cases), you start with the gross amount actually recovered (under this hypo, $31.5 million), subtract the amount of out of pocket costs ($500k), and then calculate the fee by multiplying the resultant “net recovery” by the contingency fee percentage.

Under this approach, ($31,500,000 – $500,000) x 40% = $12,400,000. Ergo, the attorneys would get $12.4 million, the Gibsons would get $18,600,000, and whomever actually paid the expenses (client or attorneys, depending on how the fee agreement is written) gets reimbursed for them ($500,000).

(2) Second approach: “Gross recovery” plus expenses

Under this method (commonly seen in personal injury cases), the attorneys fees are calculated as a percentage of the gross recovery, *and* the attorney also gets reimbursed for his expenses (which he has to carry).

Under the hypo described above, that would mean $31,500,000 x 40% = $12.6 million, plus $500,000 in expense reimbursement. Ergo, attorneys get $13.1 million; Gibsons get $18.4 million.

(3) Third approach: contingency plus attorneys fee award

Under this approach (which I have seen but would be hesitant to counsel anyone to use), the attorney receives a contingency fee of the damages awarded AND all of the attorneys fees awarded by a court. These are sometimes seen in cases where the expected damages are relatively small but the court is seen as likely to award attorneys fees (e.g., civil rights cases or small copyright cases).

Under this method, the contingency fee in the hypo would be $10 million (40% of $25 million) but the attorneys would also receive the fee / expense award ($6.5 million). Ergo, attorneys receive $16.5 million; Gibsons receive $15 million.

There are, of course, all sorts of variations on these themes, and various state bar rules may restrict how contingency fee contracts can be written.

    Silvertree in reply to LKB. | July 18, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    Sorry LKB! I must have accidentally hit the down-vote while scrolling on my mini machine here. Tried to upvote this excellent comment but no luck.

    Silvertree in reply to LKB. | July 18, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    Sorry LKB! I must have accidentally hit the down-vote while scrolling on my mini machine here. Tried to upvote this excellent comment but no luck.

    RandomCrank in reply to LKB. | July 19, 2019 at 6:02 pm

    From what I’ve read, I’d expect the Gibsons to walk away with about $20 million: the $25 million minus that part of the attorney fees not covered by the judge’s award.

    RandomCrank in reply to LKB. | July 19, 2019 at 6:02 pm

    I’d expect the Gibsons to walk away with about $20 million: the $25 million minus that part of the attorney fees not covered by the judge’s award.

At last, justice.

Deceptive new spin from Oberlin:

“The argument that academic institutions have an obligation to intervene in student protest and bar potentially libelous or defamatory speech does not necessarily bode well for anyone on either side of the aisle, Ambar says.” ***

Who ever made such an argument? The argument is actually quite the opposite: your legal obligation is to STAY OUT OF IT. If the activity is illegal, just stay out of it!

Your moral obligation requires you to provide guidance to the young adults in your charge, with a tough code of conduct and discipline when they go off the rails,


    Silvertree in reply to Silvertree. | July 19, 2019 at 12:10 am

    Oberlin president Carmen Twillie Ambar called the verdict’s implications “clear and dangerous.”

    “Chris Canavan, the chairman of Oberlin’s Board of Trustees, and I firmly believe the implication of this decision is clear and dangerous: Institutions like Oberlin could have an obligation to control speech in ways that limit the First Amendment rights of those expressing their views,” she said in a Wednesday op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch.

    from the article:

    Gibson’s Bakery wins $6.5M in attorney’s fees against Oberlin after $25M in damages – Washington Times

    TX-rifraph in reply to Silvertree. | July 19, 2019 at 9:13 am

    Would not the continuing lies harm any appeals or related post trial process? If “yes,” does that mean Oberlin knows they are toast and just want to play an SJW card for the useful idiots or is Oberlin again doubling down on stupidity? Or, both?

    I struggle with making sense out of anything Oberlin does. I fear for what their students receive for an “education.” They will be worse than unemployable.

      Within a few weeks we may know if this is just an “SJW card” or not, when they decide whether to pay up or appeal. This is sad, as I had hoped that President Ambar and the Board of Trustees, led by Chris Canavan, a Soros associate, were not part of the problem. That is becoming harder to believe, with the comments that are still being made. In my opinion, your comment, “They will be worse than unemployable” may be the crux of the matter. If this perception becomes widespread, even SJW parents may think twice about sending kids to the College (as opposed to the Conservatory).

RandomCrank | July 19, 2019 at 5:56 pm

While I think the attorney’s fees award wasn’t high enough, the good news to a non-lawyer like me is that it probably forecloses any success of an Oberlin appeal. From my other reading of this site, it seems that the college has to pay up or face interest penalties.

For lack of a better term, they appear to have gone “full retard” with these indicators that an appeal is forthcoming.

Fortunately, I am mostly retired and more recent additions to the resume have a far greater impact than the Oberlin diploma.