Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-13-07196/USCOURTS-caDC-13-07196-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

The attached material is cited in Eley v. D.C., No. 13-

7196, slip op. at 6 (D.C. Cir. July 10, 2015); (citing 

USAO Laffey Matrix 2014-2015, available on 7/10/15 at 

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usaodc/legacy/2014/07/14/Laffey%20Matrix_2014-2015.pdf).

Archived by the Circuit Library on 7/10/15

USCA Case #13-7196 Document #1592558 Filed: 07/10/2015 Page 1 of 3
LAFFEY MATRIX – 2014-2015 

Years (Rate for June 1 – May 31, based on prior year's CPI-U) 

Experience 14-15 

20+ years 

 

520 

11-19 years 460 

8-10 years 370 

4-7 years 300 

1-3 years 255 

Paralegals & 

Law Clerks 

150 

Explanatory Notes:

1. This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has been prepared by 

 the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The matrix is intended to be 

 used in cases in which a "fee-shifting" statute permits the prevailing party to recover "reasonable" attorney's fees. 

See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. ' 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of 

 Information Act); 28 U.S.C. ' 2412(b) (Equal Access to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply to cases in which 

 the hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. ' 2412(d). 

2. This matrix is based on the hourly rates allowed in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 

 1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985). 

 It is commonly referred to by attorneys and federal judges in the District of Columbia as the "Laffey Matrix" or the 

 "United States Attorney's Office Matrix." The various "brackets" in the column headed "Experience" refer to the 

 years following the attorney's graduation from law school, and are intended to correspond to "junior associates" (1-3 

 years after law school graduation), "senior associates" (4-7 years), "experienced federal court litigators" (8-10 and 11-

 19 years), and "very experienced federal court litigators" (20 years or more). Thus, the "1-3 years" bracket is 

 generally applicable to attorneys in their first, second, and third years after graduation from law school, and the "4-7 

 years" bracket generally becomes applicable on the third anniversary of the attorney’s graduation (i.e., at the 

 beginning of the fourth year following law school). See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371; but cf. EPIC v. Dep’t of 

 Homeland Sec., No. 11-2261, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 6047561, *6 -*7 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2013) (attorney not 

 admitted to bar compensated at "Paralegals & Law Clerks" rate); EPIC v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 982 F. Supp.2d 

 56, 60-61 (D.D.C. 2013) (same). 

3. The hourly rates approved in Laffey were for work done principally in 1981-82. The matrix begins with those rates. 

See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371 (attorney rates) & 386 n.74 (paralegal and law clerk rate). The rates for subsequent 

 yearly periods were determined by adding the change in the cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to the 

 applicable rate for the prior year, and then rounding to the nearest multiple of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multiple 

 of $5). The result is subject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that the relationship between the highest rate and 

 the lower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost of living are measured by the Consumer Price 

 Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV, as announced by the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics for May of each year. 

4. Use of an updated Laffey Matrix was implicitly endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Save Our Cumberland 

 Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The Court of Appeals subsequently stated that 

 parties may rely on the updated Laffey Matrix prepared by the United States Attorney's Office as evidence of 

USCA Case #13-7196 Document #1592558 Filed: 07/10/2015 Page 2 of 3
 prevailing market rates for litigation counsel in the Washington, D.C. area. See Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 

 F.3d 1101, 1105 & n.14, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1115 (1996). Most lower federal courts in the 

 District of Columbia have relied on the United States Attorney's Office Matrix, rather than the so-called "Updated 

 Laffey Matrix," as the "benchmark for reasonable fees" in this jurisdiction. Miller v. Holzmann, 575 F. Supp. 2d 2, 

 18 n.29 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Pleasants v. Ridge, 424 F. Supp. 2d 67, 71 n.2 (D.D.C. 2006)); see, e.g., Berke v. 

 Bureau of Prisons, 942 F. Supp. 2d 71, 77 (D.D.C. 2013); Heller v. District of Columbia, 832 F. Supp. 2d 32, 40-49 

 (D.D.C. 2011); American Lands Alliance v. Norton, 525 F. Supp. 2d 135, 150 (D.D.C. 2007). But see Salazar v. 

 District of Columbia, 123 F. Supp. 2d 8, 14-15 (D.D.C. 2000). The United States Attorney's Office does not use the 

 "Updated Laffey Matrix" to determine whether fee awards under fee shifting statutes are reasonable. 

USCA Case #13-7196 Document #1592558 Filed: 07/10/2015 Page 3 of 3