Case Title: R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jersey

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-35-06

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 35 September Term 2006 R.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, DISTRICT XIII ETHICS COMMITTEE and OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS, Defendants-Respondents, and JANE DOE, Defendant. Argued January 17, 2007 Decided March 26, 2007 On certification to Superior Court, Law Division, Mercer County. Richard M. Gutman argued the cause for appellant (Richard Gutman, P.C., attorney). Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). JUSTICE RIVERA-SOTO delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal, we review the methodology to be applied in respect of applications for counsel fees and costs in those instances where fee-shifting is permitted. We reaffirm that when a motion for counsel fees and costs is properly presented, the trial court must exercise its discretion within careful confines to determine the lodestar -- that is, the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate -- and then determine whether any adjustments to the product are required. [Trimper v. City of Norfolk, 58 F.3d 68, 73 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 997, 116 S. Ct. 535, 133 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1995) (citing and adopting factors from Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)).] In determining counsel fees, [s]ubjective factors may be used to increase or decrease the total amount awarded. Fluhr v. Roberts, 463 F. Supp. 745, 749 (D. Ky. 1979) (citing Johnson, supra, 488 F.2d 714). Ultimately, however, the reasonableness of counsel fees applications under either State law or Section 1988 is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Compare R.P.C. 1.5(a) (listing factors in determining reasonableness of counsel fees), and Rule 4:42-9(b) (requiring applications for allowance of fees to address factors listed in R.P.C. 1.5(a)), with Muscare v. Quinn, 614 F.2d 577, 579 (7th Cir. 1980), and King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1027 n.6 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916, 98 S. Ct. 3146, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1161 (1978). We turn, then, to an application of those standards to R.M. s motion for counsel fees and costs before the trial court. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-35 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court R.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, DISTRICT XIII ETHICS COMMITTEE and THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS, Defendants-Respondents, and JANE DOE, Defendant. DECIDED March 26, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Rivera-Soto CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY