holding that the determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees is “committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge . . . but the judge’s discretion is not unlimited. It is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination, including any award of an enhancement.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees is “committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge . . . but the judge’s discretion is not unlimited. It is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination, including any award of an enhancement.”
- recognizing “there is a ‘strong presumption’ that the base lodestar figure is reasonable, but that presumption may be overcome in those rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee.”
- explaining that even in “a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge . . . [i]t is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects” of its determination because otherwise “adequate appellate review is not feasible”
- recognizing that the lodestar method "[d]eveloped after the practice of hourly billing had become widespread" and provides a rough approximation of such billing practices, but "if hourly billing becomes unusual, an alternative to the lodestar method may have to be found"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SEPARATE OPINIONS
Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
If one were to ask an attorney or a judge to name the significant cases of his or her career, it would be unsurprising to find the list includes a case then being argued or just decided. When immersed in a case, lawyers and judges find within it a fascination, an intricacy, an importance that transcends what the detached observer sees. So the pending or just completed case will often seem extraordinary to its participants. That is the dynamic of the adversary system, the system that so well serves the law.
It is proper for the Court today to reject the proposition that all enhancements are barred; still, it must be understood that extraordinary cases are presented only in the rarest circumstances.
With these comments, I join in full the opinion of the Court.