determining that petitioner's attorneys had little experience in the relevant area of law and therefore should have a lower hourly billing rate
How later courts described this case
- determining that petitioner's attorneys had little experience in the relevant area of law and therefore should have a lower hourly billing rate
- applicants for an attorney fee bear the burden of proving their entitlement to an award and documenting their appropriately expended hours
- using the phrase “special equity”
- appeal from an attorney-fee award against the City of Birmingham containing no discussion of state immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur to reverse and render a judgment in case number 1991455; however, I dissent as to the amount of the attorney fees awarded.
I concur to affirm in case number 1991558.
Reviewing the briefs and the record, and purposefully not being specific, I am convinced that a lack of billing judgment permeates the attorneys' fee petition. I cannot sanction an award of $150 per hour for most of the hours billed, and I cannot sanction applying a multiplier of 1.5 to an already excessive lodestar award. I am the only Justice remaining on the Court who voted with the majority in Ex parte Horn , 718 So.2d 694 (Ala. 1998), to require the City to pay a legal fee to Horn's attorneys. In my opinion, it is an abuse of discretion to award a fee in excess of $581,695 (which includes the $250,000 previously paid) to Horn's attorneys.