The opinion
ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION
*59 Anderson, FranHin, O’Brien & Hanlon, Portland, for respondent.
Bobert T. Thornton, Attorney General, Gerald C. Knapp and Bay H. Lafky, Assistant Attorneys General, Salem, for appellant.
BOSSMAN, J.
This cause is before us again, this time upon a petition filed by the plaintiff for the allowance to her of an attorney fee in the sum of $750 for the services *60 which, her counsel performed. The motion cites ORS 656.292 and, unlike the one filed in King v. State Industrial Accident Commission, this day decided by us, is unaccompanied with a bill of particulars. We assume that compensation is sought only for legal services performed in this court. In the Bang case, in awarding compensation for counsel’s services, we depended in part upon the schedule of minimum fees and charges promulgated by the Oregon State Bar.
A glance at the opinion filed in this case will show that the issues which confronted counsel were no less difficult than those that were resolved in the Kang case. Counsel for the plaintiff in this case made an appearance before this court and filed a worthy brief. They also delivered two arguments before the court. The second was expressly requested by this court and had as its subject matter issues to which counsel were expressly requested to give attention. No new brief was presented in connection with the second argument. Based upon the aforementioned minimum schedule of fees, counsel for the plaintiff should be awarded an attorney fee of $500. We realize that the attorneys for the plaintiff in this ease performed effective services for their client and secured for her an amount of compensation which may be large. For the reasons expressed in King v. State Industrial Accident Commission, we think that we are not justified in awarding a sum larger than $500. Such will be the award. It will be “in addition to the compensation.” The quoted words were taken from ORS 656.292.