I had posted earlier on the decision in the case of Binder v. Disability Group. That case was a trademark infringement action based upon the Defendant's use of the name "Binder and Binder" in Google search engine advertising. Binder and Binder won. That decision is now available online. The part of the decision concerning computation of damages sheds a small amount of light on Binder and Binder's operations. Here is an excerpt (footnotes and exhibit numbers omitted):
We conclude that Plaintiffs' are entitled to an award for lost profits. Plaintiffs earned an average revenue of $3,576.93 per case in California from December 1,2005 through November 30,2006. Plaintiffs retained 18.78% of cases for which submission forms were entered on their site.
One footnote indicates that Binder and Binder's average fee per case in California was slightly lower than its nationwide average of $3,606.69.
What is unclear to me is why the Court made no adjustment, as best I can tell, for the fact that Binder and Binder would not have won all the cases it might have lost due to the trademark infringement. It seems odd to me to assume a 100% success rate for cases taken on a contingent fee basis. Surely, the Defendant's attorney argued this point. Since the Court ordered treble damages and awarded attorney fees, it would appear that the Court was not impressed with any of the Defendant's arguments.
What is unclear to me is why the Court made no adjustment, as best I can tell, for the fact that Binder and Binder would not have won all the cases it might have lost due to the trademark infringement. It seems odd to me to assume a 100% success rate for cases taken on a contingent fee basis. Surely, the Defendant's attorney argued this point. Since the Court ordered treble damages and awarded attorney fees, it would appear that the Court was not impressed with any of the Defendant's arguments.