The litigation against Columbia University and its former gynecologist Dr. Robert Hadden resulted in a landmark $165 million settlement for hundreds of survivors. Hadden, who worked at Columbia and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, was accused of sexually abusing women during medical examinations spanning decades.
While the settlement itself was one of the largest in higher education abuse history, a secondary battle quickly emerged: a messy attorney fee dispute between two plaintiff firms.
The Fee Dispute: Wigdor LLP vs. Anthony DiPietro
Two high-profile plaintiffs’ firms, Wigdor LLP and attorney Anthony DiPietro, clashed over the division of legal fees.
- DiPietro’s Claims: He alleged Wigdor improperly influenced one of his clients to opt out of a group deal, reducing his fee share.
- Wigdor’s Counterclaims: Wigdor argued that DiPietro mishandled client communication and provided biased advice.
The dispute escalated into litigation, drawing public attention and raising uncomfortable questions about attorney conduct in survivor cases.
In September 2025, both parties agreed to drop their claims, ending the fight without a court ruling.
Why Attorney Fee Wars Matter in Mass Sexual Abuse Litigation
Fee disputes are not just an internal law firm issue. They have ripple effects that can undermine trust, slow case resolution, and damage survivor confidence.
- Client Confusion & Distrust
Survivors may feel their cases are being overshadowed by lawyers fighting over fees, eroding the attorney-client relationship. - Public Relations Damage
When fee disputes become public, defense counsel and institutions may use them to question the integrity of plaintiffs’ firms, or to reduce settlement leverage. - Delay in Payments
Internal battles can delay survivor payouts, creating frustration and reputational risk for the firms involved. - Leadership & MDL Risks
In mass torts and MDLs, fee disputes can jeopardize appointments to plaintiffs’ steering committees, as judges look for firms with credibility and cooperation.
How Law Firms Can Prevent Fee Disputes in Mass Abuse Cases
To maintain trust and avoid distractions, firms can adopt proactive fee-management practices:
- Clear Co-Counsel Agreements: Define roles, responsibilities, and fee allocations before litigation begins.
- Client Consent & Transparency: Keep clients informed when multiple firms are involved and clarify how fees are split.
- Mediation Triggers: Include contractual provisions requiring mediation before litigation over fees.
- Ethics & Opt-Out Protocols: Establish safeguards to prevent claims of client “poaching” or biased advice.
- Fee Allocation Committees (in MDLs): Encourage neutral, court-approved fee structures in multidistrict litigation to avoid private disputes.
Implications for Future Mass Abuse Litigation
As litigation expands across public schools, universities, churches, rideshare companies, and correctional facilities, law firms must be prepared for fee allocation complexities. With billions in potential settlements on the line, judges and co-counsel will expect transparency and cooperation, and firms that avoid conflict will have stronger reputations and better client trust.
Partner With Blue Sky Legal
At Blue Sky Legal, we help firms focus on what matters most: securing strong cases for survivors and building sustainable litigation practices. From lead acquisition and intake to case positioning in MDLs, we ensure our partners avoid costly distractions and maintain credibility in high-stakes abuse litigation.
If your firm is preparing to enter or expand in mass sexual abuse cases, let Blue Sky Legal show you how to streamline intake, build trust, and stay ahead of fee conflicts that can derail litigation.
Contact Us Today!
