As the 12-year-long saga of Wit v. United Behavioral Health begins to wind down, the attorneys involved have started the process of determining attorney fees.
On June 12, the three firms that handled much of the case (Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Psych-Appeal Inc. and Maul Firm, P.C.), as well as a firm that aided on appeals court matters (Stris & Maher LLP) have petitioned the court to force United Behavioral Health to pay up to $31.2 million for the time expended on the case and about $1.7 million in expenses.
“A fee award is especially warranted where, as here, an ERISA fiduciary has not only acted culpably but also in bad faith, such as by intentionally violating ERISA,” the filing states. “The court’s affirmed factual findings establish that UBH deliberately developed and adopted guidelines that were unlawfully restrictive because they served UBH’s own profit motives, and that UBH lied to its members and regulators that its guidelines were consistent with generally accepted standards of care when it knew they were not.”
A spokesperson for Optum declined to comment. UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) is the parent company of United Behavioral Health, which also operates as OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions. The company’s revenue totaled $447.6 billion in 2025, up about 12% from 2024. Its net income was about $12 billion.
ERISA stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a law passed in 1974 that acts as the legal basis for most private-sector retirement and health plans. In short, the plaintiffs in the case allege that United Behavioral Health violated its duties of loyalty and acting as a fiduciary for plan members. It did so by denying claims for coverage that used clinical coverage guidelines that were overly restrictive, did not follow generally accepted standards of care and were intended to enrich the plan.
Originally filed in 2014, the district judge over Wit v. United Behavioral Health, the Honorable Joseph Spero, has sided with the plaintiffs multiple times. The case has also faced appeals court judges several times. In February, Spero issued his amended remedies order.
In that order, the judge declared that “UBH’s guideline development process was tainted by UBH’s financial interests and its lack of due care” and that the company violated several state laws that require health plans to adhere to clinical standards established by the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM).
It also enjoined United Behavioral Health from ever using guidelines the court has found invalid. It also orders that, for the next five years, any criteria established to implement generally accepted standards of care need to reflect the court’s findings and follow state law. It also retains jurisdiction over the action for that period.
In arguing its case to the court for the amount it’s seeking, the attorneys argue that the case is “extraordinary.”
“The firms representing the classes in this case pioneered a rare and important ERISA case for the benefit of the classes, and all Americans who utilize commercial health insurance,” the filing states. “No other lawyer or law firm has ever brought similar claims, much less prevailed on them to this extent.”
It also argues that the specific fees of the firms are “reasonable,” that it achieves success on the merits of its case, that United Behavioral Health acted in bad faith and that such fees are essential to deterring violations of ERISA.
“If ERISA fiduciaries ‘face the prospect of paying attorney’s fees for successful plaintiffs, they will have added incentive to comply with ERISA,’” the filing said, citing case law. Fee awards in breach-of-duty cases ‘help ensure that, going forward, [fiduciaries] exercise[] more care in processing claims.’”