The Slater Slater Schulman LLP mass tort firm is fighting back against a court challenge to its fees in the $2.46 billion Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy settlement, arguing that a group of claimants and their legal team are misrepresenting the facts and using the motion as a publicity stunt. At a hearing scheduled for March 11, 2026 in Wilmington, Delaware, Slater will defend its compensation arrangement that could net the firm tens of millions of dollars in contingency fees from representing more than 14,000 Boy Scout abuse survivors. The firm characterizes the claimants’ motion to terminate fee agreements as “improper,” but the challenge raises serious questions about transparency and what survivors were actually told about how their claims would be handled.
The dispute pits Slater against a coalition of claimants represented by major law firm Dechert LLP, which includes Yale Law professor G. Eric Brunstad Jr. The claimants allege that Slater concealed key information for more than a year and deceived thousands of survivors about the treatment of their claims within the bankruptcy process. This is not a routine disagreement over billing rates—it goes to the heart of whether a law firm properly informed its clients about material facts affecting their legal representation and recovery prospects.
Table of Contents
- What Is Slater’s Core Argument in Defending Its Fee Structure?
- What Specific Allegations Are the Claimants Making?
- How Much Money Is at Stake for Slater?
- What Penalties Could Slater Face If the Court Sides with the Claimants?
- What Are Common Warning Signs of Fee Disputes in Mass Tort Settlements?
- What Is the Role of Dechert LLP and G. Eric Brunstad Jr. in the Challenge?
- What Will Happen at the March 11, 2026 Hearing in Bankruptcy Court?
What Is Slater’s Core Argument in Defending Its Fee Structure?
Slater’s defense centers on the claim that its fee agreement was properly disclosed and that the motion against it is procedurally improper. The firm has asked the court to view the motion as a strategic challenge designed to generate attention rather than as a legitimate legal grievance rooted in contract violations or breach of fiduciary duty. In court filings, Slater argues that the claimants and their lawyers are attempting to unwind a deal that was lawfully made and continue to characterize the motion as motivated by publicity rather than principle.
The firm’s position reflects a common industry argument: that mass tort representation requires upfront risk-taking by counsel, justifying higher contingency fees. Slater had to identify and contact survivors, manage thousands of individual cases, and navigate a complex bankruptcy proceeding—all work that firms typically perform on speculation before any settlement money arrives. Slater would argue that this risk-bearing justifies the fee percentage it negotiated with claimants. The firm points to industry norms where mass tort contingency fees range from 25 to 33 percent, suggesting its arrangement falls within standard practice.
What Specific Allegations Are the Claimants Making?
The claimants’ challenge is built on allegations of concealment and misrepresentation that go beyond simple disagreement over fee amounts. According to the court filings and news reports, Slater allegedly withheld key information for more than a year and then failed to fully disclose how survivors’ claims would be treated within the BSA bankruptcy. this is a serious accusation because it touches on informed consent—the principle that clients must understand material facts about their representation before agreeing to it.
A limitation of the claimants’ position is that proving concealment in the mass tort context is difficult. thousands of survivors received notices, signed retainer agreements, and had opportunities to ask questions or seek outside counsel. Slater will likely argue that any individual claimant who felt misled should have raised the issue earlier, rather than waiting months or years to challenge the fee arrangement. The court may also consider whether the claimants’ objection is really about the fees themselves or about dissatisfaction with the settlement amount—a distinction that could affect how seriously the bench treats the deception allegations.
How Much Money Is at Stake for Slater?
Slater stands to collect tens of millions of dollars in contingency fees from the $2.46 billion Boy Scouts of America settlement, based on its representation of more than 14,000 survivors. At a standard 25 percent contingency rate, that could amount to roughly $600 million in gross fees (though Slater’s actual percentage and the portion paid from the settlement amount may differ). Even if the settlement distribution is lower than the headline figure, the firm’s fee could easily exceed $50 million to $100 million depending on the fee agreement’s terms. This enormous financial incentive is exactly why the claimants’ motion exists.
When lawyers stand to collect nine-figure fees, there is a powerful motivation to move claims through the system quickly and efficiently, sometimes at the expense of individual claimant interests. A comparison: in single-plaintiff personal injury cases, a fee dispute might involve tens of thousands of dollars and might be settled quietly. But in mass torts with thousands of claimants, the same percentage fee translates into sums large enough to justify hiring co-counsel, mounting a legal challenge, and engaging in public advocacy. For context, Dechert LLP is one of the world’s largest law firms, with the resources to mount a serious challenge; a smaller or solo claimant would likely lack the economic power to do so.
What Penalties Could Slater Face If the Court Sides with the Claimants?
The claimants have urged the court to consider whether Slater should face financial penalties for allegedly deceiving clients, which would be a severe sanction. If the court finds that Slater engaged in fraud or misrepresentation, the penalties could include disgorgement of fees (forcing the firm to return money to the settlement pool), financial damages to individual claimants, and potential referrals to state bar disciplinary authorities. At minimum, the court could void the fee agreement and force renegotiation or reduce Slater’s percentage take.
There is a tradeoff between individual claimant recovery and Slater’s interest that the court must weigh. If Slater’s fees are reduced by, say, 10 percentage points, that money flows back to the survivors, which sounds good—but it might also reduce the financial incentive for Slater to continue managing claims and handling appeals or disputes. Mass tort firms often point out that if their fees are cut too severely, they may withdraw representation or reduce the resources devoted to individual claimants. The court must consider whether penalizing Slater too harshly could actually harm the claimants it is trying to protect by destabilizing the law firm’s ability to finish the work.
What Are Common Warning Signs of Fee Disputes in Mass Tort Settlements?
Fee disputes in mass tort and class action settlements often arise when the contingency rate is set high, when claimants feel poorly informed about the deal, or when the settlement amount falls short of claimants’ expectations. One warning sign is when claimants learn about the fee structure after the settlement is already funded, rather than before they agreed to be part of the settlement. Another is when the law firm’s marketing promises high recovery but glosses over fees, making survivors believe they will net more money than they actually will.
A specific limitation of the BSA settlement context is that it emerged from bankruptcy, which is a highly technical legal process that many survivors do not fully understand. Slater had to explain not just the fee agreement but also why the bankruptcy court needed to approve certain arrangements and why individual claims could not be negotiated separately. Survivors who are traumatized by abuse and unfamiliar with bankruptcy law may have struggled to grasp these details, even if they were technically disclosed. This vulnerability is why courts sometimes hold mass tort law firms to a higher standard of clarity and candor when representing survivors of personal injury.
What Is the Role of Dechert LLP and G. Eric Brunstad Jr. in the Challenge?
Dechert LLP is a multinational law firm with offices across the globe and deep expertise in complex litigation and bankruptcy matters. By lending its resources and credibility to the claimants’ challenge, Dechert signals that this is not a frivolous dispute but a serious legal argument. G.
Eric Brunstad Jr., a Yale Law School professor, brings academic credibility and is likely contributing his expertise in securities law, bankruptcy, or civil procedure—areas where issues of disclosure and fiduciary duty are central. This configuration—major law firm plus academic expert—creates a significant counterweight to Slater’s defense. Courts tend to take motions more seriously when they are backed by such resources and credibility. However, Dechert itself is a for-profit law firm and likely stands to benefit if the fees are reduced or restructured; while Dechert may be representing some claimants pro bono, the firm’s involvement also reflects business calculation and opportunity.
What Will Happen at the March 11, 2026 Hearing in Bankruptcy Court?
The hearing will take place at 10:00 AM on March 11, 2026 at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court located at 824 Market Street, 6th Floor, Courtroom #2 in Wilmington, Delaware. Both Slater and the claimants’ legal team will present oral arguments, and the bankruptcy judge will decide whether the fee agreement should stand, be modified, or be terminated.
The judge may also decide whether to impose penalties on Slater for alleged misconduct. The timing of the hearing suggests that the bankruptcy court process is nearing key decision points on fee approval and claim distribution. Bankruptcy judges in these large multi-claimant cases often hold hearings to allow objecting parties to be heard before finalizing approval of fee arrangements and settlement plans. The outcome of this March hearing will likely influence not only the amount Slater receives but also how the remaining settlement funds are distributed to survivors.
- —