1 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fee The Benton-Franklin County Bar Association s 9 th Annual Federal Civil Trial Practice Seminar May 15, 2015 Erika Hartliep Staff Attorney USDC-Eastern District of Washington
2 JUDGE S BAD HAIRCUT LEADS TO SHEARING OF ATTORNEY S FEE By Erika Hartliep ERIKHARTLIEP THIS MATERIAL WAS PREPARED FOR USE AT THE 2015 BENTON- FRANKLIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION FEDERAL CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE SEMINAR. It does not represent the policy or position of the Eastern District of Washington or any of its judges. Erika has served as Judge Shea s Staff Attorney, working on federal criminal and civil cases, since Erika graduated at the top of her University of Idaho Law School class, while participating in Law Review. She received her bachelor s degree in agricultural economics (summa cum laude) from Washington State University. When not at the courthouse, Erika enjoys time with her husband and two children, assisting with sports, church, and educational activities. Erika also serves as Vice President for the YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities.
3 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fee THIS MATERIAL WAS PREPARED FOR USE AT THE 2015 BENTON-FRANKLIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION FEDERAL CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE SEMINAR. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE POLICY OR STANCE OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON OR ANY OF ITS JUDGES. The Ninth Circuit supports 10-percent haircuts. Specifically, it supports unexplained 10-percent trims to attorney-fee requests. The root of this unexplained cut is perplexing. And as recently as last year, this unexplained 10-percent trim continues to be permitted by the Ninth Circuit. This article begins by discussing U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit attorney-fee principles prior to The 2008 Moreno v. City of Sacramento decision, which appears to be the first time the Ninth Circuit permitted an unexplained 10-percent haircut to duplicative hours, is then analyzed. Next, subsequent Ninth Circuit decisions, including Gonzalez v. City of Maywood and Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, which extend Moreno s haircut from 10 percent of the duplicative hours to the lodestar, 1 are discussed. Finally, suggestions are offered for counsel when filing a motion for attorney s fee. Attorney-Fee Framework To appreciate the expanded power given to district courts in reducing attorney-fee requests, one must understand the process the court utilizes when calculating a reasonable attorney fee. When reviewing a prevailing party s attorney-fee motion, the district court engages in a two-step process. First, the district court calculates the lodestar. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the successful claims (and those related to the successful claims) by the reasonable hourly rate for such tasks. During this first step s reasonable-hour assessment, the district court eliminates duplicative, excessive, and unnecessary hours, while also recognizing that the litigation process sometimes reasonably requires lawyers to duplicate tasks. Second, although there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is a reasonable fee, the district court considers whether an upward or a downward adjustment to the lodestar is appropriate to establish a reasonable attorney-fee award, i.e., an 1 The lodestar is the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate. Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). The lodestar is presumed to be a reasonable rate. Mendez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008). 2 P a g e
4 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees attorney-fee award that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of the lawsuit, Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010), and which reflects the level of success achieved by the prevailing party, A.D. v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 460 (9th Cir. 2013). The attorney s fee resulting from this two-step process is the to-be-awarded reasonable attorney s fee. What level of review of the attorney-fee filings does the district court engage in? Even if the attorney-fee request is unopposed, the district court has an independent obligation to review the record and ensure that the requested attorney s fee is reasonable. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). The remainder of this article focuses on to what extent the district court must explain the basis for its attorney-fee award. On this point, a seminal case is Hensley v. Eckerhart. 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). In Hensley, the Supreme Court remanded an attorney-fee analysis back to the district court because the district court failed to calculate the lodestar or set forth a concise but clear explanation for why it awarded attorney s fees less than those requested. Id. at 437 (emphasis added). Hensley was applied by the Ninth Circuit in Gates v. Deukemjian. 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992). In Gates, the district court (without explaining why a reasonable fee was achieved) accepted the requesting civil-rights plaintiffs proposed attorney-fee award, which included discrete hourly reductions as well as a 10-percent reduction to the lodestar to account for any duplicative hours apart from the discrete hourly reductions also applied. Id. at The Ninth Circuit reversed, remanding the matter to the district court to abide by Hensley s requirement to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award, id. at 1398 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437) (italics in Gates): [T]he district court is required to articulate not only the reasons for its findings regarding the propriety of the hours claimed or for any adjustments it makes either to the prevailing party s claimed hours or to the lodestar. Id. Yet, the Ninth Circuit mentioned that the concise but clear requirement can be satisfied by the district court either 1) making across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours or in the final lodestar figure or 2) conducting an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request. Id. at In regard to percentage cuts, the Ninth Circuit stated: Percentages indeed are acceptable, and perhaps necessary, tools for district courts fashioning reasonable fee awards. However, decisions of district courts employing percentages in cases involving large fee requests are subject to heightened scrutiny and the use of percentages, in any case, neither discharges the district court from its responsibility to set forth a concise but clear explanation for its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction nor 3 P a g e
5 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees from its duty to independently review the applicant s fee request. Id. at 1400 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Gates requires the district court to review the record and provide a concise and clear explanation as to why it finds a reduction necessary to achieve a reasonable attorney-fee award. Id. at Following Gates, the Ninth Circuit in Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp. recognized that percentage reductions may be appropriate where much smaller fee awards are at stake, but only when the district court provides a reasonable explanation for the cut. 244 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added; footnote omitted). The Ninth Circuit stated, Indeed, the practice of reducing fees without identifying the hours spent inefficiently or providing any explanation of the particular degree of reduction adopted is no more defensible in relatively straightforward cases such as this one than in complex cases such as Gates, for several reasons. Id. at The Ninth Circuit remanded the attorney-fee request under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to the district court because the district court did not explain why it reduced the number of hours by more than 50 percent. Time for a Hair Cut In 2008, the analysis of an attorney-fee petition changed. In Moreno v. City of Sacramento, the Ninth Circuit stopped requiring district courts to explain the basis for cutting requested hours by 10 percent beyond merely stating that the hours were duplicative. 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008). In Moreno, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court s reduction to an attorney-fee request filed by a prevailing plaintiff in a civil-rights action. After personally excluding about 9 percent of the total hours spent on the case, counsel requested an attorney-fee award of $704, The district court further reduced the hours, concluding that 50 percent of the time spent on investigation and interviews was unnecessary and about 30 percent of the time spent on research, appeal, and trial preparation was duplicative. After a reduction to counsel s hourly rate, the district court awarded attorney s fees totaling $428,053. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit analyzed separately the district court s reductions for duplicative work, unnecessary work, and unreasonable hourly rates. While recognizing that a district court may award a reduced number of hours because of duplicative work or unnecessary work, the Ninth Circuit determined the district court failed to adequately explain how it came up with the amount, noting [t]he explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible. Id. at 1111 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437). In regard to the issue of duplicative hours, the Ninth Circuit commented: The district court has a greater familiarity with the case than we do, but even the district court cannot tell by a cursory examination which hours are unnecessarily 4 P a g e
6 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees duplicative. Nevertheless, the district court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent a haircut based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation. Id. at 1122 (emphasis added). No case was cited to support authorization to the district court to make an unexplained 10-percent haircut for duplicative hours. 2 One is left to wonder whether a 10-percent cut to the requested hours explained simply by duplication and nothing more satisfies Hensley s clear but concise requirement. Moreno requires a district court to consider counsel s own 9 percent reduction as part of the haircut: Findings of duplicative work should not become a shortcut for reducing an award without identifying just why the requested fee was excessive and by how much. As the reduction passes well beyond the safety zone of a haircut, which plaintiff's counsel seems to have given herself already, the district court's justification for the cuts must be weightier and more specific. 534 F.3d at 1113 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit s haircut analysis was solely within the confines of its duplicative-hours analysis. Therefore, Moreno could be read as permitting a 10-percent haircut (excluding the percentage already reduced by counsel) only of duplicative hours not all claimed hours. Yet, the Ninth Circuit commented at the end of the Moreno opinion: If opposing counsel cannot come up with specific reasons for reducing the fee request that the district court finds persuasive, it should normally grant the award in full, or with no more than a haircut. Id. at This haircut discussion at the end of the Moreno opinion blurs whether a 10- percent trim applies only to duplicative hours or to all requested hours, which would necessarily result in a 10-percent trim to the lodestar. 3 2 In comparison, an unpublished 1994 Ninth Circuit opinion remanded an attorney-fee award to require the district court to provide clear and concise... reasons for reducing the lodestar calculation by ten percent. Chavez v. City of Lynwood, 42 F.3d 1398, *4 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 1994) (unpublished opinion). 3 Due to the associative property of multiplication, it makes no difference in terms of the final amount to be awarded whether the district court applies the percentage cut to the number of hours claimed, or to the lodestar figure : (A x B) x C = A x (B x C). Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 n.2 (9th Cir. 2013). 5 P a g e
7 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees Because Moreno does not provide a source for its 10-percent trim, it is difficult to ascertain how and when the 10-percent trim may be applied by the district court. Earlier in the Moreno opinion, a First Circuit decision, Bogan v. City of Boston, was cited: Where the difference between the lawyer's request and the court's award is relatively small, a somewhat cursory explanation will suffice. But where the disparity is larger, a more specific articulation of the court's reasoning is expected. Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111 (citing Bogan, 489 F.3d 417, 430 (1st Cir. 2007)). Possibly the First Circuit s permitted cursory explanation by a district court when awarding a fee that is relatively small[er] than the lawyer s request is the source for the 10-percent haircut. Yet when one combs through Bogan, no reference to a 10-percent trim explained simply by duplicative hours is found. In Bogan, the First Circuit affirmed the magistrate judge s 50- percent reduction of the lodestar, even after specific reductions had been made to the requested hourly rate and hours. The magistrate reduced the lodestar by 50 percent because the trial focused on claims that the Bogans were unsuccessful on and the ultimate damage award was modest. The First Circuit affirmed this substantial reduction, over the Bogans argument that it was excessive and involved impermissible double counting, because the magistrate judge provided a detailed explanation for its reductions: Especially where, as here, a fee award is substantially reduced, the trial court is expected to provide a detailed explanation for its action. Id. at 429. Also, the First Circuit noted, The Supreme Court has held that a reduction of a fee award beyond the lodestar may be appropriate where the plaintiff is unsuccessful on interrelated claims and ultimately obtains only limited success. Id. at 430 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436). Accordingly, Bogan, which is consistent with Ferland s allowance for explained percentage reductions, cannot serve as the root for an unexplained 10-percent trim. A month following Moreno, the Ninth Circuit analyzed a district court s attorney-fee award without mentioning the 10-percent haircut. Instead, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the district court s duty to clearly explain the basis for any reduction to an attorney-fee request in Mendez v. County of San Bernardino. In Mendez, the Ninth Circuit recognized, consistent with Moreno, that the district court should consider whether the requesting party voluntarily reduced its hours: Nonetheless, Mendez's perhaps clumsy effort to account for inappropriate costs or inefficient hours suggests she was trying to act in good faith. 540 F.3d 1109, 1129, n.3 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that when calculating the lodestar the court may make adjustments [to the requested hours and hourly rate] it finds are warranted based on the record before it, and [t]he court may also reduce an award for attorney s fees for unnecessarily duplicative work, if the court provides a clear explanation that we can review as to why these hours were truly unnecessary. Id. at (quoting Moreno, 540 F.3d at ). 6 P a g e
8 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees From a trim to a shearing? No further mention was given to Moreno s 10-percent haircut for duplicative hours in a published Ninth Circuit civil opinion until 2013 when the 10-percent trim was expressly expanded to the lodestar. 4 In Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, the Ninth Circuit stated: [W]hen a district court decides that a percentage cut (to either the lodestar or the number of hours) is warranted, it must set forth a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction. We have recognized one exception to this rule: [T]he district court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent a haircut based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation. 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Gates, 987 F.2d at 1400, and then Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112) (emphasis added). No justification was offered for expanding Moreno s 10- percent haircut from duplicative hours to the lodestar. 5 Not only is the basis for this expansion unexplained but this expansion is at odds with the Ninth Circuit attorney-fee principles set forth in Gates and Ferland, and the 2010 Supreme Court decision Perdue v. Kenny A. Perdue addressed whether an enhancement to a fee award was permitted. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge must explain all aspects of a fee award in order to permit appellate review, ensure consistent attorney-fee awards, and to prevent a judge s mood from impacting the court s decision: It is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination, including any award of an enhancement. Unless such an explanation is given, adequate appellate review is not feasible, and 4 The 10-percent haircut was mentioned in a Criminal Justice Act fee opinion, In re Matter of Gerald Smith, 586 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009), and a social security opinion, Neil v. Comm r of Soc. Sec., 495 Fed. App. 845 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012) (unpublished opinion). 5 A separate concern regarding Gonzalez is its failure to recognize that one of the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, (9th Cir. 1975) whether a fee is contingent or flat may not be used by the district court to consider a fee s reasonableness. See City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, (1992) (determining a fee s contingency should not be considered when determining whether an enhancement to the lodestar is appropriate under fee-shifting statutes); Davis v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that whether the fee was a contingent fee is not a factor in either the lodestar calculation or the ultimate reasonableness assessment). In addition, whether a lawsuit s desirability is relevant to the fee calculation is questionable. Id. at (citing Dague, 505 U.S. at ). 7 P a g e
9 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees without such review, widely disparate awards may be made, and awards may be influenced (or at least, may appear to be influenced) by a judge's subjective opinion regarding particular attorneys or the importance of the case. 559 U.S. 542, 558 (2010). Although Perdue analyzed an enhancement, not a reduction, to the lodestar, the purpose of requiring the district court to provide a reasonably specific determination for all aspects of a fee determination applies equally to a reduction, even a 10- percent reduction. And Perdue recognizes this: Why, for example, did the court grant a 75% enhancement instead of the 100% increase that respondents sought? And why 75% rather than 50% or 25% or 10%? Id. at 557. Ferland, Gates, and Perdue make the expansion of Moreno s 10-percent duplication haircut to the lodestar in Gonzalez confounding. And the unexplained 10-percent haircut continues to be recognized. 6 Last year in Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court s attorney-fee award, which reduced the requested hours (already reduced by counsel by 10 percent) by 88 percent because of multiple duplicative efforts, excessive overstaffing, and unnecessary hours and then reduced the lodestar by another 25 percent because the plaintiffs experienced limited success on their claims. 751 F.3d 1096, (9th Cir. 2014). When reviewing the district court s assessment of the reasonableness of the requested hours, Chaudhry states, a district court can reduce a lawyer s request for duplicative or unnecessary work, and it can impose up to a 10 percent reduction without explanation.... However, where the disparity is larger, a more specific articulation of the court's reasoning is expected. Id. at *12 (quoting Moreno, 534 F.3d at ) (emphasis added). What attorney-fee findings must a district court make? Following Chaudhry, a number of questions remain. First, because Chaudhry discusses the 10- percent haircut in the confines of duplicative and unnecessary work, is the Ninth Circuit shifting back to permitting unexplained 10-percent trims solely to reduce duplicative or unnecessary hours, rather than to reduce the lodestar? Second, must the 10-percent trim take into account any reduction in hours already done by counsel? In Chaudhry, the Ninth Circuit noted that the requesting party reduced the hours it spent on the case by 10 percent, but later in the opinion when setting forth the 10-percent haircut rule, the Ninth Circuit did not state that a 10-percent haircut by the district court would be inappropriate in light of the voluntary 10-percent reduction already taken by counsel. 6 See also Marquez v. Harper Sch. Dist. No. 66, 546 Fed. Appx. 659 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2013) (unpublished opinion) (citing to Moreno and reversing the district court s 50-percent reduction in claimed hours because it surpassed the 10-percent haircut and was not supported with a specific explanation). 8 P a g e
10 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees Therefore, does Chaudhry expand Moreno s haircut to 20 percent: 10 percent by requesting counsel and an additional 10 percent by the district court? Such an expansion is at odds even with Moreno. A further question is posed by an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision that followed Chaudhry: Terry v. City of San Diego, 583 Fed. App x 786 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished opinion). Terry ruled that absent a massive fee application, the district court must conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request and exclude only unreasonable hours thereby limiting across-theboard percentage cuts to massive fee applications. Id. at 789. Should a distinction be made between massive fee requests and simpler fee requests, and what constitutes a massive fee request? Permitting 10-percent haircuts to massive fee requests, as compared to simpler fee requests, will result in a greater disparity between the requested award and the ultimate award, i.e., 90 percent of $500,000 is $450,000 (a difference of $50,000), whereas 90 percent of $100,000 is $90,000 (a difference of $10,000). Therefore a judge s mood when reviewing a massive attorney-fee request could result in a significant reduction to that request a concern that established the heightened scrutiny for percentage cuts involving large fee requests in Gates. The last fundamental question is whether Moreno s unexplained 10-percent trim remains good law? Any unexplained trim appears at odds with Hensley, Ferland, Gates, and Perdue, which require at a minimum, a concise but clear explanation for a district court s attorney-fee findings. An unexplained cut is also at odds with the Supreme Court s Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air decision, in which the Supreme Court emphasized that the lodestar is presumed to be reasonable and the district court must make detailed findings as to why the lodestar amount was unreasonable. 478 U.S. at 568. Accordingly, a district court s haircut to the lodestar for no specified reason, especially if requesting counsel already reduced their hours or hourly rate, does not comply with Supreme Court attorney-fee principles, although it is permitted under the Ninth Circuit s Moreno, Gonzalez, and Chaudhry decisions. This poses quite the conundrum for district courts and counsel in the Ninth Circuit. Practice Pointers What is the take away for a party seeking to recover attorney s fees and to avoid an undesired haircut to the requested amount? Counsel is encouraged to do the following: provide the district court with sufficiently detailed hourly records so that the court has documentation to conduct an hour-by-hour analysis; if there are time entries that appear duplicative or unnecessary, counsel should explain why such hours were reasonably incurred or voluntarily reduce those hours; 9 P a g e
11 Judge s Bad Haircut Leads to Shearing of Attorney s Fees if counsel has voluntarily reduced the hours or the lodestar, identify those reductions and cite to Moreno as requiring the district court is to consider those reductions when calculating a reasonable lodestar and attorney-fee award; (attempt to) explain that it is not a massive fee application, notwithstanding the provided hourly records if it is massive, provide the hourly records in a format that makes the court s review as easy as possible by identifying the date, hours, and attorney whom performed the work, and providing enough detail to permit the court to differentiate between tasks; file a personal declaration identifying your legal experience and skills in support of the requested hourly rate; provide declarations from other counsel supporting the reasonableness of the requested hourly rate in the local community by an attorney of similar skill; explain why the presumed-reasonable lodestar (or enhanced lodestar) achieves a reasonable attorney-fee award; cite Hensley s requirement that a district court provide a clear but concise explanation for all attorney-fee findings; and also cite Perdue, Delaware Valley, Gates, and Ferland for the proposition that any reduction to hours, hourly rate, or the lodestar are to be clearly explained and therefore any doubts as to the application of Moreno, Gonzalez, and Chaudhry are to be interpreted as requiring the court to explain its attorney-fee award no more unexplained bad haircuts to attorney-fee requests. 10 P a g e
12 E.D. Wash. ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS 1 By Erika Hartliep, Staff Attorney to U.S. District Court Senior Judge Edward F. Shea Year Awarded Attorney Case Location Type of Claim & Case Information Years of Practice Skills/Awards 2 Awarded Hourly Rate 2015 Robert Dunn Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR 2014 John John Spokane Breach of commercial lease 2014 John Jamnback Spokane (Seattle BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 2015 John Lynch Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. Lamberson, CV TOR 2014 Steven Miller Spokane Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 2014 David Lowe Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. C.G. Chinque Albright, CV TOR The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Athias, CV TOR 34 -experienced federal and state trial lawyer -prepares materials and lectures for CLE programs on employment-related matters 44 -financial services litigation -law review 26 -litigator -30 state and federal court jury trials -argued appeals -presented over 25 cases to arbitration panels 25 -intellectual property practice -counsel of record in numerous trademark, patent, and copyright matters 13 -financial services litigator -bankruptcy experience 20 -federal and state court litigation experience -intellectual property $450 (2013) $400 (2012) $445 $405 $400 $385 $ Maureen VanderMay Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. C.G. Chinque Albright, CV TOR -30 years of legal experience as both law professor and practicing attorney $350 1 This chart was last updated April 10, 2015, and is based on attorney-fee awards in the Eastern District of Washington since This chart does not purport to be a full and accurate record of attorney-fee awards issued by Eastern District of Washington judges but rather serves only as a sampling of such awards. See Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing concern of adopting an informal court-wide policy regarding the reasonableness of charged hourly rates). 2 Information was obtained from the documents filed in support of the attorney-fee motion, the pertinent Order, or the law firm website.
13 2014 Michael Daudt Spokane (Seattle The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Athias, CV TOR Improper removal from Chelan County Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, CV TOR 22 -partner $ Michael Delay Spokane WLAD retaliation Hotchkiss v. CSK Auto, Inc., CV TOR 24 -civil litigation: represents insureds and personal injury claimants in disputes with insurers, along with real estate and probate -law firm owner $ Patrick Kirby Spokane WLAD retaliation 2014 Lyle Tenpenny Spokane (Seattle 2014 Jeremy Roller Spokane (Seattle 2013 Brendan Monaghan Yakima Hotchkiss v. CSK Auto, Inc., CV TOR Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Hostile work environment/constructive discharge EEOC v. Global, CV EFS 2012 Keller Allen Spokane Wrongful employment termination EEOC v. Cottonwood Financial, CV EFS 19 -employment and commercial litigation -law firm owner 13 -partner -speaker on labor and employment issues -Law Review 13 -partner -served as law clerk to U.S. District Court judge -commercial litigation matters -clerked for U.S. District Court judge -complex civil litigation matters 21 -shareholder -litigation and trial practice focusing on complex commercial matters -serves as arbitrator and mediator 23 -Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers -published author and lecturer in employment law $350 $340 $340 $315 $ Matthew Anderson Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, CV EFS 34 -focuses on commercial and business-related litigation -state and federal cases -American College of Trial Lawyer Fellow $ Julie Woog Spokane (Seattle Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 10 -civil litigation practice $315
14 2013 Bryan Cross Richland (Denver Subrogation action for vehicular accident injuries Lamberson v. Garfias, CV RMP 19 -partner -trial attorney -National Trial Counsel for Ford Motor Co. and other Fortune 500 companies $300 -Martindale-Hubbell AV peer review rating 2010 Richard Kuhling Yakima (Spokane Agricultural Worker Protection Act Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., CV EFS 33 -experienced trial lawyer -commercial and personal injury litigation $ Beverly Anderson Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No research and brief writing for state and federal trial and appellate matters -Gonzaga adjunct writing professor $ Lynden Rasmussen Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No focuses on construction law -taught construction law at Gonzaga $ Gary Smith Yakima Fair Labor Standards Act Rana v. Bains Invests. Inc., CV JPH 33 -senior attorney of NW Justice Project $ Mike Kelly Richland (Des Moines 42 U.S.C Corter v. Groseclose CV EFS 13 -criminal defense, employment law, civil rights, and personal injury -trial counsel $ Beth Joffe Yakima (Seattle Hostile work environment/constructive discharge EEOC v. Global, CV EFS 19 -employment litigation -co-author Bloomberg BNA Corporate Practice Employment Discrimination Law series $ Elizabeth Weinsten Spokane (Seattle Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 9 -commercial litigation matters $ Steven Lacy Spokane (Wenatche e Family Medical Leave Act Lane v. Grant County, CV RCW 33 -civil rights litigation -partner $ Kirk Miller Spokane Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 7 -litigation experience $285
15 2014 Clay Gatens Spokane (Wenatche e Sleeper v. Rent Recover, LLC, CV-14-5-TOR Improper removal from Chelan County Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, CV TOR -represents low-income clients in consumer rights cases 11 -partner $ Michael Arch Wenatchee Dispute concerning settlement agreement concerning Native American s estate distribution Wapato v. Evans, CV EFS, ECF No Diane Meyers Spokane Breach of commercial lease 2013 Lori Isley Yakima Farmworker rights BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., CV TOR 32 -state and federal practice -BV rating -client s contract rate: $ senior associate -complex litigation matters and trial experience -Law Review editor -clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge 21 -Columbia Legal Services -represents low-income people, including farm workers in complex civil litigation $275 $275 $ Joe Morrison Wenatchee Farmworker rights Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., CV TOR 20 -Columbia Legal Services -represents low-income people, including farm workers in complex civil litigation $ Jeffrey Smith Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. Lamberson, CV TOR 8 -corporate, litigation, and life-sciences groups $ Ryan Yahne Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No focuses on construction law in state and federal court -WYLD past president $ Rhett Barney Spokane Copyright infringement Elf-Man, LLC v. Lamberson, CV TOR 1 -trademark, copyright, and litigation practice groups $ Robert Mitchell Yakima (Spokane Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 7 -lead counsel $250
16 Chase v. Delta Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., CV LRS -specializes in debt collection litigation 2014 Joseph Baker Jeffrey Caffee Neal Kinglsey Richland (Des Moines attorneys) 42 U.S.C Corter v. Groseclose CV EFS ECF No. 91 ECF No. 91 $ Bruce Johnston Wenatchee (Bainbridge Island Indian law will dispute Wapato v. Evans, CV EFS, ECF No state and federal practice -AV rating -law school adjunct faculty member $ Mary Palmer Spokane Employment discrimination EEOC v. Cottonwood Financial, CV EFS 29 -associate $ Brian Ihler Kennewick 1983 unlawful search and seizure Rogers v. City of Kennewick, CV EFS 24 -partner -civil practice $ Beau Haynes Spokane (Seattle Improper removal from Chelan County Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, CV TOR 3 -associate $ Rick Wetmore Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR 2015 Scott Kinkley Spokane Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Sleeper v. Rent Recover, LLC, CV-14-5-TOR 2015 Susan Nelson Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR 10 -associate $ litigation experience -represents low-income clients with a variety of consumer and housing issues $ associate $ Patrick Pleas Yakima Fair Labor Standards Act Rana v. Bains Invests. Inc., CV JPH 16 -NW Justice Project staff attorney -represent eligible low income people $ Elizabeth Tellessen Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV focuses on private and public land use & real estate transactions -WYLD president elect & trustee $200
17 395-EFS, ECF No Christine Lyman Richland (Denver Subrogation action for vehicular accident injuries Lamberson v. Garfias, CV RMP 4 -associate -clerked for Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal judge -graduated Order of the Coif $ Sara Hutchinson Yakima (Seattle Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Chase v. Delta Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., CV LRS 8 -non-lead counsel -specializes in debt collection litigation $ Gregory Johnson Amy Crewdson Yakima Agricultural Worker Protection Act Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., CV EFS See ECF No See ECF No $200 for each of these attorneys Daniel Ford Lori Isley Joachim Morrison Laura Contreras 2013 Olivia Gonzalez Yakima Hostile work environment/constructive discharge EEOC v. Global, CV EFS 4 -associate $ Kellen Hade Spokane Breach of commercial lease BKWSpokane, LLC v. FDIC, CV TOR 3 -law review -clerked for U.S. District Ct. judge $ Stewart Smith Spokane (Wenatche e Family Medical Leave Act Lane v. Grant County, CV RCW 17 -associate -employment law, civil rights, and personal injury $ Andrea Schmitt Yakima Farmworker rights Saucedo v. NW Mgmt. & Realty Servs., CV TOR 6 -staff attorney for Columbia Legal Services -clerked for Washington Supreme Court justice $ Christopher Crago Spokane Business/construction contract Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No tax and transactional services for businesses and estates $ Collette Leland Spokane Business/construction contract 2 -commercial litigation & criminal defense -law clerk to Washington Supreme Court justice $170
18 Riverstone Center West, LLC v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., EDWA No. CV EFS, ECF No Alexandria John Spokane Disability discrimination Carlson v. City of Spokane, CV TOR -deputy prosecuting attorney for Spokane County 3 -associate $140 Paralegal Rates: Sleeper (2014) Judge Rice: $75/hour (noted that no evidence was submitted to support requested rate of $125/hour) Rogers (2010) Judge Shea: $90/hour Corter (2014) Judge Shea: $90/hour Lane (2013) Judge Pederson: $90/hour Carlson (2015) Judge Rice: $95/hour Elf-Man (2014) Judge Rice: $125/hour BKWSpokane LLC (2014) Judge Rice: $165/hour Clerical Rates: Rogers (2010) Judge Shea: $30/hour
Case 4:08-cv-00441-MWB Document 375 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA THE STATE OF ARIZONA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, and ANGELA
In the United States Court of Federal Claims HOLDEN RUPERT, by his Mother and Next Friend ANDREA RUPERT, v. Petitioner, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. No. 99-0774V
RULE 68: THE SETTLEMENT PROMOTION TOOL THAT HAS NOT PROMOTED SETTLEMENTS JAY HOROWITZ INTRODUCTION Any attorney experienced in civil litigation necessarily would agree that a rule intended to promote settlement
DON T BE A DEFENDANT: ATTORNEY FEES, CONTINGENCY FEES AND ATTORNEY ADVERTISING ROBERT L. TOBEY COYT RANDAL JOHNSTON Johnston Tobey, P.C. 3308 Oak Grove Avenue Dallas, Texas 75204 State Bar of Texas CONSUMER
U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) City of Riverside v. Rivera No. 85-224 Argued March 31, 1986 Decided June 27, 1986 477 U.S. 561 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
CITY OF CHICAGO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 510 N. Peshtigo Court, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 744-4111 (Voice) (312) 744-1088 (TDD) IN THE MATTER OF: ) G. Keith Richardson ) Complainant, ) ) v.
Complete Guide to Legal Ethics Complete Guide to Legal Ethics Prepared by: Kenneth S. Kagan Carney Badley Spellman, P.S. Brian H. Krikorian Jonathan A. Kroman Garvey Schubert Barer Christopher J. Soelling
r e s u l t s f i r s t sm n e w s l e t t e r Volume XxIII winter 2015 Co-Editors Charles F. Kenny, Partner and Michael S. Zicherman, Partner Indemnity and Hold Harmless Clauses in Florida Construction
Electronic Discovery In This Issue May 2008 Volume 56 Number3 United States Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys Washington, DC 20530 Kenneth E. Melson Director Contributors'
Chapter 41 Clifford E. Kirsch Broker-Dealer Regulation (2 nd ed.) Copyright 2011 Practising Law Institute SEC and CFTC Whistleblower Rules and Anti-Retaliation Protections John H. Sturc Partner, Gibson,
Drafting and Enforcing Fee Agreements Prepared by Steven M. Richman, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org 2008 Duane Morris LLP. All Rights Reserved. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris
2010 Court Watch Report Many areas of law affect the way consumers participate in the marketplace, from contract law to access to the court system. Georgia has many procedural hurdles that limit the consumer
Fee Agreements and Related Administrative Documents By: Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program, An LCL, Inc. program Disclaimer: The Board of Bar Overseers/Office of Bar Counsel DOES NOT
Unauthorized uses of copyrighted materials are prohibited by law. The PDF file of this article is provided subject to the copyright policy of the journal. Please consult the journal or contact the publisher
NONPHYSICAL PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS: AMENDING THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TO EXCLUDE ATTORNEY FEES PAUL M. JONES, JR. * INTRODUCTION 1 The U.S. Tax Court recently announced in Kenseth v.
Electronic Discovery Getting Your E-Discovery Money Back By Mark L. Austrian Taxation of Costs and Offer of Judgment A review of the predominant case law and recommendations for coping with this constantly
AN INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTION PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES Janet Cooper Alexander * The class action is among the most powerful legal tools available in the United States. It enables the vindication
How Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation s Fair Housing Laws A P R I L 2 0 0 2 Visit PD&R's Web Site www.huduser.org to find this report and other sponsored by HUD's Office of Policy Development
BACK TO THE FUTURE: LORRAINE V. MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. AND NEW FINDINGS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION Hon. Paul W. Grimm, Michael V. Ziccardi, Esq., Alexander W. Major,
Applying State Contingency Fee Caps in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Settlements * I. Introduction... 961 II. Background on State Contingency Fee Caps and MDL Consolidation... 963 A. State Contingency
NAVIGATING THE NEW WORLD OF E-DISCOVERY Navigating in the Brave New World of E-Discovery: Ethics, Sanctions and Spoliation Allison O. Van Laningham I. INTRODUCTION E-discovery is a fact of life in nearly
Accuracy in Damages: Florida Juries Should Base Personal Injury Awards on Actual Costs of Treatment, Not Inflated Medical Bills Victor E. Schwartz Cary Silverman Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. 1155 F Street
NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS PRESENTS: FEDERAL PRACTICE FOR THE STATE PRACTITIONER A CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSE OCTOBER 4, 2013 12:00 P.M. TO 5:00 P.M. UNITED STATES DISTRICT