It’s typical for attorneys to receive about a third of a settlement or verdict won for their clients, especially in cases where the cases proceeded through a trial to a final verdict. The fee requested in this case by the lawyers would amount to roughly 11% of the recovery.
That's a bigger percentage than Musk's pay package was compared to the increase in Tesla's market cap since 2018.
If shareholders think paying 10% of money the lawyers won for them is fair, they should also think paying 10% of the money Musk earned for them is fair.
But then, the suit was never about the interests of the shareholders; it was brought by someone who held just nine Tesla shares.
(And before anyone mentions it: I do think the workers deserve a bigger share, but that wasn't an issue in either pay package.)
This is an example of I always say that the most intellectually dishonest people on earth are lawyers: their job is to have an opinion for money.
Can you imagine if you ask an engineer "do you think this bridge will hold?" and he replied "if you pay me I will think whatever you tell me". This could happen, but this would just be a corrupt engineer, it's not the profession is supposed to work. But this IS how lawyers work, by construction. If you pay them they will think what you tell them.
Knowing this, is anyone surprised that the guys who argued that 50bn is too much for the CEO want the lawyers (themselves) to be paid 5bn? No of course not. This is how their profession works, they're intellectual mercenaries.
