Attorney Fee Awards: Judges' Powers Examined

In the United States, attorney's fee awards are granted in several instances, including class-action lawsuits, civil rights violations, and copyright and patent disputes. The award of attorney's fees depends on the law of jurisdiction and the presiding judge's discretion. While each party typically pays their attorney's fees under the 'American Rule', the losing side may be ordered to pay the winning side's legal fees in some cases. This practice, known as fee-shifting, is common in breach of contract cases and when statutes or contracts specifically allow for it. Administrative law judges can award attorney's fees based on the case's specifics and the applicable laws and statutes.

When can a losing party be required to pay attorney fees?

In the US, the general rule is that each party in a legal case pays for their own attorney fees, under a principle known as the American Rule. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and a losing party may be required to pay the winner's attorney fees in certain situations.

Firstly, a losing party may be required to pay attorney fees if there is a specific contract or agreement between the parties that includes an attorney fee clause. These clauses typically require the losing party to pay the winning party's attorney fees and are often included in business contracts, real estate contracts, and leasing agreements. Courts must enforce these provisions unless there is a compelling reason not to, although such cases are rare.

Secondly, a losing party may be required to pay attorney fees if there is a specific statute, case law, or state/federal law that allows the successful litigant to obtain legal fees from the unsuccessful litigant. For example, some states have laws requiring the losing side to pay attorney fees in lawsuits involving government entities or anti-discrimination laws. Other statutes that may allow for attorney fee awards include those protecting the public interest, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, and those providing for sanctions against frivolous lawsuits or appeals filed for improper purposes.

Additionally, in some cases, courts may invoke doctrines such as the common benefit doctrine or the common-fund doctrine to award attorney fees to the winning party. The court will consider factors such as the attorney's experience and skill, the number of hours worked, and the reasonable criteria for billing when determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded.

It is important to note that the rules and practices regarding attorney fee awards may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the presiding judge's discretion. Therefore, it is advisable to consult with a lawyer to understand the specific laws and provisions applicable to a particular case.

What is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)?

In the United States of America, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorises the payment of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in an action against the United States. This is unless the government can show that its position in the underlying litigation "was substantially justified". The Act is codified in scattered sections of the United States Code. 5 U.S.C. § 504 states that an agency that conducts an adversary adjudication against a prevailing party shall pay the fees and expenses of the party, unless the adjudicative officer of the agency finds that the position of the agency was substantially justified. "Adversary adjudication" is defined as a formal trial-type ex parte proceeding in which the agency is adverse to the party, and is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 554 "trial type" proceedings. This is as opposed to an inter partes proceeding in which the agency adjudicates a dispute between two parties, or the less-formal proceedings of § 555.

In Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the Supreme Court unanimously held that an EAJA award is payable to the litigant, not their attorney. The award is also subject to offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes to the United States. The substantial justification standard requires that the government show that its position was grounded in: "a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; a reasonable basis in law for the theory propounded; and a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the legal theory advanced".

In Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988), the Supreme Court decided three issues concerning EAJA: the applicable standard of appellate review; the meaning of "substantially justified"; and the "special factors" that allow a court to award more than $75 per hour. The Supreme Court found that EAJA did not provide a clear prescription as to the appropriate standard of review. The Pierce Court rejected the position that substantial justification requires more than mere reasonableness, holding that the government's position is substantially justified if it is “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person”.

In general, attorney's fee awards are granted in a number of instances, such as class-action lawsuits, civil rights violations, and copyright and patent infringements or disputes. To obtain an attorney's fee award, the litigant seeking such an award must prove that the fees in question have been incurred and that they are reasonable. The actual amount awarded may not necessarily equal the amount paid by the party seeking the award, as courts use the lodestar method of billing, which multiplies reasonable expected billable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. The court will consider the attorney's experience and skill and determine what an attorney of similar expertise might charge in the community in which the court sits.

How do judges determine the amount of attorney fees to be awarded?

In the United States, each party in a legal case typically pays for their own attorney fees, under a principle known as the American Rule. However, attorney's fee awards are granted in a number of instances, such as class-action lawsuits, civil rights violations, and copyright and patent infringements or disputes.

The amount of attorney's fees to be awarded is generally determined by multiplying the reasonable number of hours expended on a case by the reasonable hourly rate at which counsel should be compensated. The court will consider the attorney's experience and skill and determine what an attorney of similar expertise might charge in the community in which the court sits. The applicant can bill for the same amount of time as they would be able to bill their own clients, excluding claims on which they were unsuccessful, hours that are not adequately documented, and work that is deemed unnecessary, excessive, or redundant.

In some cases, the court may adjust the final fee award downward if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate and document appropriate billing judgment to eliminate inefficiencies. For example, in one case, the court deducted ten percent from the total fee award to account for "unnecessarily duplicative and redundant hours spent resulting from multiple counsel performing overlapping work."

Additionally, the court may also consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the settlement, including the necessity for bringing the action and whether the party is the successful party with respect to the central issue.

What are the common benefit and common fund doctrines?

In the United States, each party in a legal case typically pays for their own attorney fees, under a principle known as the American rule. However, attorney's fee awards can be granted in a number of instances, such as class-action lawsuits, civil rights violations, and copyright and patent infringements or disputes.

The common fund doctrine is a common law, equitable remedy that allows a court to diminish the share of the lienholder's recovery by the percentage of that recovery attributable to the attorney who brought about the financial recovery. In other words, the litigant or lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees from the fund as a whole. This doctrine is often employed by personal injury attorneys to maximize an injured person's overall recovery. For example, in a personal injury case, the injured victim who retains an attorney ends up paying part of the recovery to that attorney in exchange for their services. The injured victim can usually deduct the same percentage from the reimbursement to medical providers.

The common benefit doctrine is similar to the common fund doctrine in that it allows attorney's fees to be awarded from a common fund. In a case where the common benefit doctrine was invoked, the district court ordered that the plaintiffs' attorneys be awarded their fees from the total amount of the judgment, concluding that it was equitable for all class members—claiming and non-claiming alike—to bear a pro rata share of the costs of producing the judgment in their favor. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorneys' fees, holding that the common-fund doctrine, as applied in this case, is entirely consistent with the American rule against taxing the losing party with the victor's attorney's fees.

It is important to note that attorney's fee awards depend on the law of jurisdiction and, in some cases, the discretion of the judge presiding over a matter. In some cases, the award is not contingent upon the level of the court in which the case is tried. For example, a state court may award attorney's fees for a case involving federal laws or statutes.

How do attorney fee awards vary by jurisdiction?

Attorney's fee awards are granted in a number of instances, including class-action lawsuits, civil rights violations, and copyright and patent infringements or disputes. The actual amount awarded may not equal the amount paid by the party seeking the award, and courts may use the lodestar method of billing, which multiplies reasonable expected billable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. The court will consider the attorney's experience and skill and determine the rate of an attorney of similar expertise in the community. The applicant can bill for the same amount of time as they would be able to bill their clients, excluding unsuccessful claims, hours that are not adequately documented, and work that is deemed unnecessary, excessive, or redundant.

In the United States, the general rule is that each side in a legal proceeding pays for its attorney fees, but there are exceptions where federal courts and federal agencies may order the losing party to pay the prevailing party's fees. For example, federal courts can order a losing party that acted in bad faith to pay the prevailing party's fees. There are also statutory exceptions, which were generally enacted to encourage private litigation to implement public policy. Awards of attorney's fees are often designed to help equalize contests between private individual plaintiffs and corporate or governmental defendants. Thus, attorney's fees provisions are most often found in civil rights, environmental protection, and consumer protection statutes.

The practice of ordering the losing side in a case to pay for the winning side's legal fees is known as fee-shifting. In many other countries, the losing side always pays all legal fees involved in a case. Even in the United States, courts can, in some cases, order the losing side to pay for the winning party's attorney fees. This may occur when a statute, case law, or contract allows the successful litigant to obtain legal fees from the unsuccessful litigant.

The amount of an attorney's fee award may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the presiding judge's discretion. For example, a state court may award attorney's fees for a case involving federal laws or statutes. In addition, some jurisdictions have local rules that bar the use of any time increment other than 6 minutes for billing purposes.

Frequently asked questions