Lawyers in Vioxx case closer to getting paid

NEW YORK Feb 18 (Reuters Legal) - After battling Merck & Co. (MRK.N) in court for years over the safety of its Vioxx painkiller, lawyers for the plaintiffs are a step closer to finally getting paid. A committee charged with divvying up more than $300 million in attorneys' fees for work on lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company has made its recommendations to a federal judge in New Orleans.

The recommendations were laid out in a little-noticed court filing last month to U.S. Judge Eldon Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana, who has been overseeing the multidistrict litigation over Vioxx. The big proposed winners include the law firms Seeger Weiss ($40.9 million); Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles ($40.9 million); Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar ($32.5 million); Lanier Law Firm ($27 million); and Weitz & Luxenberg ($20 million).

After it won 11 of 16 trials, Merck agreed in November 2007 to settle nearly all of its litigation over Vioxx for $4.85 billion. Since then, nearly all of the plaintiffs have received their funds, but their lawyers have yet to be paid.

In October, Judge Fallon ruled that attorneys who did the most legal work for the thousands of plaintiffs who sued Merck deserved 6.5 percent of the settlement. Since then, a fee allocation committee appointed by Judge Fallon has been reviewing applications by more than 100 lawyers.

Judge Fallon must approve the final allocation plan. In an order last month, he invited any firm unsatisfied with the recommendation to file objections. According to a filing by the allocation committee, 61 firms approved of the committee's recommendation while 27 objected to their proposed share. The firms that objected include Kline & Specter ($12 million); Morelli Ratner ($12 million); and Motley Rice ($5 million).

Robert Arceneaux, an attorney appointed by Judge Fallon to represent the objecting firms, did not return a call seeking comment. Russ Herman of Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, who chairs the allocation committee, also did not return a call.

The case is In Re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 2:05-md-01657.

(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth of Reuters Legal; Editing by Amy Singer)

(This article first appeared on Westlaw News & Insight, www.westlawnews.com)