The long-running legal dispute over attorney fees connected to a $165 million settlement involving Columbia University has come to an end. Attorneys who had been fighting over their share of the fees agreed to permanently discontinue the case earlier this month, according to court filings in New York state court. While the resolution closes a heated chapter in the aftermath of one of Columbia’s most high-profile abuse settlements, it also leaves open broader questions about how fee-sharing and client solicitation disputes are managed in large-scale litigation.
The Columbia Settlement: A Landmark Case
The underlying litigation stemmed from the conduct of Dr. Robert Hadden, a former Columbia University gynecologist accused of sexually abusing hundreds of patients over decades. In 2022, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital agreed to pay $165 million to resolve claims brought by a group of women alleging abuse.
This settlement, one of several reached in connection with Hadden’s conduct, represented a milestone for survivors and underscored the mounting accountability faced by institutions tied to abusive practitioners. Attorney Anthony DiPietro, who had built a practice representing survivors of Hadden’s misconduct, played a lead role in negotiating the 2022 settlement on behalf of about 147 women.
The Fee Dispute: DiPietro vs. Wigdor LLP
After the settlement was finalized, tensions flared between DiPietro and Wigdor LLP, a well-known plaintiffs’ law firm. DiPietro accused Wigdor of improperly soliciting one of his clients, identified in court as “Jane Doe #2,” and persuading her to withdraw from the global settlement group to pursue separate representation.
According to DiPietro, Wigdor’s involvement came only after extensive negotiations had already been conducted, essentially allowing the firm to “piggyback” on his work. He argued that Wigdor owed him a share of any legal fees ultimately obtained through representing that client.
Wigdor, however, rejected those claims and responded with counter-accusations. The firm alleged that DiPietro had acted unethically, failed to properly communicate with his client, and potentially mishandled conflicts of interest. The sharp back-and-forth escalated into a bitter litigation over professional conduct, client rights, and the division of attorney fees.
A Quiet End: Claims Withdrawn
On September 16, 2025, both parties filed notices in New York state court agreeing to permanently discontinue the case. The filings offered no details about whether the lawyers reached a financial settlement or simply decided to walk away. Neither side has issued a public statement, and attorneys for both DiPietro and Wigdor declined to comment when contacted by reporters.
By dropping the case, both firms sidestep the risk of a potentially damaging public trial that could have aired sensitive details about attorney-client communications, fee arrangements, and ethical disputes. The resolution avoids a ruling that might have set precedent for how courts handle fee-sharing battles in large settlement contexts.
Key Legal & Ethical Issues
Though the dispute is now closed, it highlighted several important legal and professional questions for the legal community:
- Client Solicitation & Poaching: At the heart of the case was whether Wigdor’s recruitment of a client already represented by DiPietro crossed the line into improper solicitation.
- Origination Credit & Fee Sharing: Disputes over who “originated” a client and how fees should be divided are common in plaintiffs’ practice, but rarely do they spill so publicly into litigation.
- Ethics & Disclosure: Wigdor alleged DiPietro failed to disclose conflicts or provide adequate advice to his client, while DiPietro maintained that he had acted transparently.
- Reputation & Leverage: Even without a final court ruling, the dispute illustrated how fee fights can threaten reputations, client trust, and leverage in future cases.
Broader Context: High Stakes in Mass Settlements
The Columbia fee dispute is far from an isolated conflict. In large-scale abuse and mass-tort settlements, battles over fees and client origination rights are increasingly common. When settlements reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, attorneys have strong incentives to protect their financial interests, sometimes sparking intra-counsel disputes even after clients have secured relief.
DiPietro, in particular, has claimed over $1 billion in settlements connected to Hadden’s misconduct across multiple cases, cementing his role as one of the lead attorneys pressing the institution for accountability. That track record likely made his fee dispute with Wigdor especially high-profile in the plaintiffs’ bar.
🔍 Lessons for the Legal Community
For attorneys and firms, the outcome of this case underscores several practical lessons:
- Document Everything: Thorough client communication and clear agreements on representation and fees are critical in preventing disputes.
- Anticipate Conflicts: In multi-client or multi-firm settlements, anticipating conflicts over origination and fee sharing can help avoid litigation later.
- Balance Ethics with Business: Fee battles may generate financial gains but can also risk reputational costs and client trust.
- Confidentiality Over Clarity: By ending the dispute quietly, both sides avoided setting a precedent but also left the broader legal community without definitive guidance on fee-sharing disputes.
🧭 Looking Ahead
Although this fee fight is over, the issues it raised will continue to reverberate in mass-tort and abuse litigation, where multiple firms often represent overlapping groups of clients. For survivors of misconduct and abuse, the key outcome remains the same: Columbia has paid a historic settlement, and attention has shifted from institutional accountability to the internal disputes of the lawyers involved.
For the legal profession, however, the episode serves as a reminder of the stakes — not only in advocating for clients but also in navigating the competitive and often contentious world of attorney compensation.
💼 Thinking about your own legal career path? Whether you’re looking for opportunities in plaintiffs’ firms, BigLaw, or niche practices, LawCrossing has the most comprehensive database of legal jobs nationwide.
👉 Don’t just read about high-stakes cases—find your next opportunity today at LawCrossing.
