READLER, Circuit Judge. The derailment of 38 cars in a Norfolk Southern freight train in early 2023 upended the quiet Columbiana County (Ohio) community of East Palestine. With the train carrying hundreds of thousands of gallons of hazardous materials, the derailment stoked fires that billowed for days. Those combustions were followed by additional “controlled releases” that resulted in a “toxic mushroom cloud” of chemicals. Am. Master Complaint, R. 138, PageID 1804, 1805–06. To some observers, the incident “looked like something out of Chernobyl.” See Salena Zito, ‘We Don’t Know What We Are Breathing’: A Report from East Palestine, The Free Press (Feb. 23, 2023), https://perma.cc/T4J5-CCBW. Thousands were evacuated from the area, with fears growing over potential health, environmental, and economic fallout from the accident. Within days of the accident, lawsuits ensued against Norfolk Southern. The cases, filed on behalf of numerous affected individuals and businesses, were eventually consolidated into one master class action. In the end, a $600 million settlement was forged between the parties, which the district court ultimately approved. See In re E. Pal. Train Derailment, --- F. 4th --- , Nos. 24-3852, 24-3880, 25-3342, 2025 WL 3089606, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025). Today’s case, however, does not directly concern the victims of the derailment or the settlement they achieved. Instead, it involves the lawyers who sued Norfolk Southern. The dispute here involves a late-breaking fight over the timing and allocation of attorney’s fees. Weeks after the district court gave final approval of the settlement and fees, Morgan & Morgan—a law firm that represented a group of individuals and entities who had filed standalone cases against Norfolk Southern—challenged the distribution of attorney’s fees. Despite having been awarded nearly $8 million in attorney’s fees (and receiving those fees at an expedited pace), Morgan & Morgan took issue with the process for awarding those fees. In the end, the district court refused to undo its earlier decisions. We largely agree. Save for a narrow issue as to Morgan & Morgan’s specific allocation of the total fee award, which we remand for consideration by the district court, we affirm.