are they pleased or this case the district court erred by adjusting the attorney's fees awarded based on the outcome of the litigation without tying that outcome directly to the quality of the plaintiff the purpose of the section nine hundred eighty eight the underlying purpose is that a reasonable fee is one that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of a meritorious civil rights  under which a court could enhance a fee i had a case on appeal shortly afterward i had to read purdue in some detail and i didn't see it as modifying our traditional standards in any way nor do i think any subsequent case of our court has modified those standards take off i don't think yet so i don't think purdue requires us to disregard our prior case law nor does it require us to disregard far of the hobby for instance about adjusting the amount of the award to the amount of success make this as a binding precedent is a different issue there are a number of issues there let me start with the first of them i do believe you are correct in saying that this circuit has not come to the conclusion that its previous jurisprudence has been affected by our position is that's fee is dependent at least in significant part on the results obtained yes we do disagree our position is ferrar is a limited exception to the loadstone rule of based on the old dick motm that bad law facts make that law in that case mr farrar sued for millions of dollars when he was alleged to have committed homicide against people that don't people it's children school one a purely nominal victory was awarded zero damages and wanted hundreds of thousands in attorney's fees the all the courts found that that was inappropriate they put the key in our belief is that four hours unlimited jurisprudential a budget justice o'connor's concurrence specifically in that case that says that minimal that the monetary award alone is not determined whether or not it's a significant victory that there are other issues involved including the potential for societal benefits and those are best determined by the trial court when the neutralizing the lodestar factor so our answer specifically is yes for our as good law but it doesn't apply here because this was not a quote nominal or merely technical victory there was an actual victory with an actual award it was low but that's based on the fact the mental and the minutes were damages in these kind of cases can be low when there is no physical injuries but and then on the other ish issue of hensley we specifically the trial court made the factual finding which we believe has not been appealed or is not objected to at this time and we certainly do not believe it's clear that the reduction that it gave for the lack of success on the merits for the other claims that were not successful properly a adjusting for that  lodestar itself so the answer is we believe that farrar is a very limited exception and that hensley was to multiple deals with multiple claims and in different with varying levels of societal benefit in the community at large and we believe the trial court made that so it which is very which is one of our porton points in this and our position is we believe that this case second the next clarification of the rule would be that the strong presumption of the lodestar method you'll see appropriate fee and specifically that's where we get into the determination of how of why we believe purdue was basically the point is that eight of the johnson factors have been held by the supreme court to already be subsumed into the calculation of the lodestar including success on the merits so our point is any modification should have been made into the lodestar not after the lodestar was calculated and then done this entire new modification based on these other factors  important at what point in locales that tend toward modest monetary verdicts are we telling those victimized by groups but not physical sexual harassment over a period of time or other violation of their rights that a private attorney general is not for them those two statements came out of judge clark's opinion in this case and it's very clear to me from reading his opinion that he wanted to pay us his original approved lodestar of ninety four thousand six hundred twelve dollars and eighty cents he found that that was appropriate after taking a twenty percent reduction for the limited recovery that we proposed and he accepted the appellate want to argue that were dictating our fee we didn't dictate anything we made a proposal and he accepted it he certainly could have reduced this by thirty or forty percent and he thought that was appropriate but he didn't now as far as me guess we we believe that the holding in the guest the provision which was based on four are obviously the panel and me guess you can tell by reading their opinion thought that that was a nominal damages case the defendants had appealed the mental anguish award and the the court made perfectly clear to me at least that they didn't think she should have gotten any mental anguish damages but they couldn't find a reason to reverse it they thought the case to settle whatever for whatever reason they thought megace was a nominal damages case and that's how they  d this is not a nominal damages case not only do we have a five thousand dollars jury bridge but we have the societal benefits and the change in personnel policies now we believe that since pretty do the hold in vegas has been or strained at the very north road in that case the second circuit and the cases following that case and the second circuit have all interpreted purdue to say that it applies to all adjustments and love star not just enhanced fence we asked this court to follow the second circuit's reasoning and adopt purdue as applying to all adjustments on the love star not just in and can sponsor not only does the us supreme court state that it's inappropriate to apply the johnson specifically said regardless of the exceptional ability of the attorneys we find that ratio too large well that told you right there that they separated the attorneys performance from the fee awarded from the results obtained and  can't do that the results obtained has to be tied to the attorney's performance and a lesser specific evidence in the record as to the attorney's performance as to why the lodestar should be adjusted then you can adjust the lodestar there is nothing there's nothing wrong that i could see that judge clark said anything about her performance in fact i think he said it was pretty good he talked about the ability of the attorneys and i think she certainly didn't say we were inferior in any way what accounts for the verdict and well judge clark and he mentioned that and he said it could because this is where release tax says five thousand dollars is a lot of money to a lot of people rural east texas is known for dealing in verdicts that have nine figures so i think five thousand speaks volumes but not and in favor of your client well nick here and i and i know you're talking about the patent litigation there are you know to not just patent a lot of cases but that was what judge clark said is he thought that that and also could be because this they realize that the city got rid of the sexual encouraged city manager and other than that i can't account for the small fee but i will tell you that at least in my experience sexual harassment verdict is much harder to obtain than retaliation burnet it's much harder to prove sexual harassment occurred than to prove that somebody was fired because it so this is a very it was an odd verdict in both senses that in fact that was a five thousand and that they found her sexual harassment that we believe he abused his discretion number one and because we already took the twenty percent reduction for those for the lack of success for the limited or covering and that was for all of it not just for the two claims that we didn't to any adjustment the lodestar we would point out that this court has consistently held that as an abuse of discretion to reduce the lodestar on the sole basis of a low damages award and that is about as recently as last year in the cing are in hollowell oh i was copying miller all those cases say that you cannot reduce the lodestar only because of the women's success of the case and so if you don't want to follow the reasoning in we would ask you to follow this court's own precedent and not reducing the lodestar based on the low damages award we would ask this court to reverse the attorneys feel war for twenty five thousand render judgment for combs for attorney's fees him on a ninety four thousand six hundred twelve dollars and eighty cents we would also request a judgment for fees and costs in pursuing this appeal and we would point out that a rematch and for recalculation of the loads are is not appropriate because a judge has already make a distinction between small dollar cases and some types of cases are not going to result in large verdicts no matter how good the formants of the council is in my take a lot of legal time and effort to get to their fair labor standards on the question of not reversing simply because of a low verdict they tend to believe fs l a cases and i think that's distinguishable from here where there are multiple claims for that it could result in substantial verdict had had the plaintiff been successful here in damages for for the for the two other claims so it was a pretty it was not a successful case for them it's very similar fa wrong legal standard and if he say and the meat goes fixes a six point five ratio that is the maximum in so called low dollar low success  six and a half is a bright line that he was saying that that was a that was the guidance of the score six and a half its discourse going to look at very closely is an abuse of discretion if he granted more than six and a half t similar factual ca i think on the the million case for that counsel science i think that it's the second circuit of course which is nice not binding here i think johnson factors the way this court and other courts day i think that is appropriate in light of handling and even a lot of her deeds the lodestar strong presumption in pretty you that it's not  have to disagree with in the way court is that states that litigation outcomes are only relevant when there's a direct result of the quality of the attorney's representation that is based on of attorneys representation because good attorneys are going to able to charge higher fees and get higher get a better result that doesn't mean it doesn't go the other way around you still have to get some degree at the portion  re read it and all that but i don't necessarily have any greater recollection of again much of any other old case you know reading but since my disallowed just saying no and man does we have other cases and all of these of course have been point demanded x you know gets why it's better you look look at that but just not a requirement that my just is a consideration of the truck or in the whole calculus of all these this morning and it's looking last night w what i well let me just suggest to you that this this court would normally not say that our president has been dislodged by a supreme court case unless it's pretty clear and i understand i understand i understand that and the worst that you can say about produce in this case is produce says followed stars a good idea but john some factors are sub somewhat subjective but we use well and i think that's a problem that is that the supreme court has with is that using both it leaves too much discretion of the trial judges if the court says nothing about that in purdue it just says there are two methods and the lodestar method accounts for everything relevant it doesn't say you may no longer least use the johnson factor so i'm just i'm just telling you we if you're asking us to disavow our former president that's a pretty high hurdle under the circumstances of what the court said it was deciding in the way in which you decided to introduce i understand and yet i am asking you to follow the reason i'm a lawyer and that's what they did and i understand the panel can't necessarily do that unless you interpret  however this court is constrained by the holding in me is to reduce the total to something less than six and a half times the actual damages awarded that is just wrong i mean that like he said he suppose we were to bank kate and remand and tell him if he misinterprets let's say assume we accepted that he misinterpreted make us as a binding ratio of some sort and then we tell him to evaluate the case in terms of the dollars and they give you five but that's not a real big outcome for a plaintiff at all but as it was on the real big a really good case or it was a very bizarre jury actually it was a very good case and judge clark even mention that there was evidence of continual sexual harassment of the plaintiff by the city manager we had ten to twelve witnesses this is nothing like megace hunter to what counsel says we had ten to twelve witnesses he has had a couple witnesses that the media's had a three day bench trial we had a two week jury trial there was continual sexual harassment on a daily basis and me guess had me has got fired because she was pregnant that was it and the court even said we know he you feel vindicated because a federal court sa harassment and jess clarke said that he found the witnesses a credible and he believed that he found her sexual harassment that was his finding so it's nothing like me is at all so so so i took i take issue