LUTHMANN’S NOTE: I have a stake in this litigation, and viewers should know that. They should also read the documents. My criticism of Hales and Shochet rests on the claims they brought, the arguments they filed, and the consequences they now face. Helm’s fee request deserves scrutiny, including his proposed hourly rate. I said so on the broadcast. But a serious fee dispute demands more than another performance for the audience. My $33,410 estimate is a prediction. Judge Hinkle will make the decision. Until then, I’ll keep reading the filings—and explaining why I think their arguments fail on the merits.
Joining Lisa Lee and Robbie Keszey on Two Lees in a Pod, Luthmann takes apart Hales’s amended opposition to Helm’s attorney-fee motion, filed by attorney Randall “Randy” “POCKET ROCKET” Shochet. With the September 6 filing on screen, the panel follows the arguments, checks the numbers, and asks whether the Halesverse’s litigation strategy is becoming its own most expensive content.
Helm, known online as Making Law Simple, has already secured dismissal with prejudice. The remaining fee dispute puts a dollar figure on what it took to get there.
The court’s own language supplies the backdrop. In his March 11 order, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle described the litigation as “at bottom, a war of words.” His April order directed entry of judgment dismissing Helm and other defendants with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction over timely requests for fees and costs.
That leaves a question the livestream audience cannot decide: who pays, and how much?
Luthmann’s central criticism targets the opposition’s treatment of Florida law. Hales pursued Florida causes of action, including a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, yet the opposition argues against applying Florida’s anti-SLAPP fee remedy. Luthmann challenges that position and walks viewers through the difference between federal procedural rules and substantive grounds for recovering attorney fees.
The opposition raises choice-of-law and other objections that the court must resolve. Luthmann’s argument is that the brief spends too much time fighting around the claims Hales actually brought—and too little time confronting the fee exposure those claims may create.
Then the discussion reaches the numbers.
Helm requests $50,550, calculated at $500 per hour for 101.1 hours. The opposition challenges that rate, points to lower insurance-negotiated billing rates, and submits an affidavit from Florida board-certified appellate attorney Nicholas A. Shannin. His alternative calculation puts reasonable fees at $16,270 after proposed billing reductions.
Luthmann acknowledges that the hourly-rate objection has substance. He examines the difference between the requested rate and the insurance billing arrangement, the proposed reductions, and the objection to using the Washington, D.C.-based Laffey Matrix in this dispute.
Then he makes his prediction: $33,410.
That figure is his midpoint between the competing numbers. It is a broadcast estimate, not a judicial award or a court-approved calculation. Likewise, the opposition’s $16,270 alternative does not concede that fees are legally owed; the plaintiffs seek outright denial first.
The broader point lands harder than any nickname: once litigation generates a fee motion, the accounting becomes part of the story.
The program also turns to Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute and the separate September 2 recommendation concerning Luthmann himself. Magistrate Judge Zachary C. Bolitho recommended dismissing Hales’s sexual-cyberharassment claim against Luthmann with prejudice because the challenged video did not contain the statutorily required sexually explicit image. Luthmann discusses that analysis and Eugene Volokh’s coverage.
That recommendation must be distinguished from Helm’s existing dismissal judgment. The materials discussed here do not establish that Judge Hinkle has adopted Bolitho’s recommendation concerning Luthmann.
Lisa Lee also discusses bankruptcy filings and the continuing disputes surrounding the Halesverse, before the panel closes with audience questions and its assessment of where the litigation goes next.
Luthmann brings the commentary. The filings provide the test. Watch the full appearance, read the documents, and decide which arguments survive the comparison.
Support Luthmann News:https://ko-fi.com/luthmannnews
September 6 amended opposition to Helm’s fee motion:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1klAlWs_1cl0V9hNxIs2sbrsJrzdQe2-x/view
Judge Hinkle’s March 11 order:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zW2PHhzkCNHj7IDGHdxkBy_RLDVV-1yt/view
April order directing dismissal judgments:https://drive.google.com/file/d/14Y-r-fzsnaHukZwso2RobLuovChS9ygz/view
September 2 Report and Recommendation concerning Luthmann:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4F0n9gS1Vij1JA54-NhM_u0wjgWkpZ0/view
Related analysis:https://luthmann.substack.com/p/vulgar-juvenileand-legally-protected
https://www.youtube.com/@LuthmannNews
Subscribe to Two Lees in a Pod and Luthmann News, share the episode, and tell us which fee argument you think carries the most weight.
Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.
