T h e H on or a b l e L e w i s A
. Ka

p l an , D i s tr i c t Ju d g e of

th e U n i te d S ta te s D i s tr i c t C our t f

or * t he S o u t he rn D i s t r i c t o f

N e wY o r k , s i

t t i ng by d e s i g na t i o n. 07-5580- cv N ic h o le M c D an ie l, e t a l. v . C o un t y o f S c h e n e c t a dy, e t a l.
1 UNITED S TATES C OU RT OF APPE ALS 2 FOR TH E SECO ND C IRCUIT 3 4 A ugus t T erm

2008 5 6 7 A

rgued: May

13, 2009 Dec i ded: F eb ruar y 16, 2010 8 9 10 Do cket No
. 07-5580- cv 11 12

_____________________________________ 13 1 4 N I C H O L E M AR I E M C D A N I E L , I n d iv id

u a lly an d o n b e h a lf o f ac la s s o f o t h e r s s imi lar ly 15 s i

t uat ed, LESS IE L E E DA VIE S, In di

v i dual l y an d o n b eh al f o f a cl as s o f o t h ers s i m i l arl y s i t uat ed, 16 17 P lai nti f f s -Appe lla nts , 18 1 9 -v .- 20 21 CO UNTY OF SCHENE CTA DY, HA RR Y B UF F ARD I, Bo t h

i n di v i dual l y an d i n h i s o f f i ci al 22 capa ci

t y as Sh eri f f o f t h e C o un t y o f Sch en ect ady , GOR

DON POL L ARD , Bo t h

i n di v i dual l y an d as 23 Un dersh eri f

f o f t h e C o un t y o f Sch en ect ady , RO BERT E L WE L L SR., Bo t h In di v i dual l y an d as 2 4 M a j or i n th e S c h e n e c ta dy

C oun ty S h e r i f f ’ s D e p ar tme n

t, 25 26 Def endants -A ppellees

. 27

_____________________________________ 28 29 3 0 B e f

o re : W

A L K ER , L IV IN G STO N , Cir

cuit Judges , K

APLA N, Dis tric t Judge

. * 31 3 2 Pl a i

n t i f f s -A p p e l l an t s a p p e a l f rom an o rd e r of t h e U n i t e d State s D i s t ri c t C o urt f

o r t h e N o rt h e rn 3 3 D i s t ri c t o f

N e wY o rk

(S h arp e , J. ), appro v i

n g t h e s et t l em

en t o f a cl as s act i o n

ari s i n g f ro m al l eged 34 v i o l at i o n s o f

t h ei rco n st i t ut i o n al r i ght s, b ut awar di

n g l ess t h an t h e r equ est ed f ee t o t h ei rat t o r n ey s.2 1 W e co n cl

ude t h at t h e di s t ri ct co urt di d n o t ab us e i t s di s cret i o n b y decli

n i n g t o awa rd at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees 2 u s i ng a p e r c e n t a g e - o f

- f und a p p r o a c h, i

n t he e xt e nt o f

i t s r e l i anc e o n o urd e c i s i o n i n Arbo r Hi ll 3 Conc er

ned Citiz ens Ne ighborhood A s s ociation v. County of A lbany , 4 9 3 F .3 d

1 1 0 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 7 ), 4 s uper

s eded by 522 F
. 3d 182 (2d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , o r i n i t s appl i cat i o n

o f t h e reas o n ab l en es s f

act o rs s et 5 f o r t h i n Goldber

ger v. I ntegr ated Resour

ces, Inc. , 2 0 9 F .3 d

4 3 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). 6 A f

f i rm ed. 7 EL M ER R O B ER T K

EA C H , III , L awO f

f i c e o f El me r R o b e rt 8 Keach I I I , P C, A

m st er dam , New Y o r k, JA S ON J. ROZGE R, 9 B R U C E E. M EN K

EN , B e ran

b a u m , M enke n , B e n -A s h e r & 1 0 Bi e r man L L P , N e wY or k , N Y , J O N A T H A N W A T SON 1 1 C U NEO, C un e o , G i l

b e rt & L a D u c a , W a s h i

n g t o n D .C ., 1 2 G AR Y E. M A SO N , Th e M a s o n L awF i rm , W a s h i n g t o n D .C ., 13 f or P lai nti f f s -Appe lla nts . 14 1 5 W I L L I AM G
. G RE A G A N , G o ld b e r g S e g a lla , L L P , A lb an y, 1 6 N Y , f or Def endants -A ppellees

. 1 7 P H I L I P K
. H O W ARD , J E NN I F E R

O
. F AR I N A , C ov i

n g ton 1 8 & B url i n g L L P, N e wY o rk , N Y , as A mi cus Curia e in supp ort 19 of Def endants -A ppellees

. 20 2 1 L IV IN G STO N , Cir cuit Judge : 2 2 Pl a i

n t i f f s -A p p e l l an t s a p p e a l f rom an o rd e r o f t h e U n i

t e d State s D i s t ri c t C o urt f

o r t h e N o rt h e rn 2 3 D i s t ri c t o f

N e w Y o rk (S h arp e , J. ), appro v i n g t h e s et t l em

en t o f a cl as s act i o n

ari s i n g f ro m al l eged 2 4 v io la t io n s o f t h e t h e ir c o n s t it u t io n a l r ig h t s , b u t aw ar d in g le s s t h an t h e r e qu e s t e d fe e t o t h e ira t t o r n e ys 2 5 f r om th e c om

mon f un d e s ta b l i s h e d b y th e s e ttl e me n

t. R a th e r th an b a s e i

ts a ttor n e y s ’ f

e e s c a l c u l a ti on 26 o n

a perce n t age o f t h e f un d, t h e di s t ri ct co urt el ect ed t o cal cul at e f ees us i n g a v ari an

t o f t h e l o des t ar 2 7 me t ho d d e s c r i

be d by t his C o u r t i

n A rbor Hill Conce r

ned C itizens Ne ighborhood Ass ociation v.3 1 County

of A lbany , 4 9 3 F
. 3 d

1 1 0 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 ), s u

p e r s e d e d by5 2 2 F .3 d

1 8 2 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). 2 C o ns i d e r i

ng t he f a c t o r s s e t f

o r t h i n Goldber

ger v. Int egr

ated R es ources, Inc. , 2 0 9 F .3 d 4 3 (2 d C i r. 3 2000), t h e di s t ri ct co urt co n cl uded t h at co un s el were adequat el y co m pen s at ed b y an awa

rd o f f ees 4 t h at r ef

l ect ed t h ei

r n o r mal h o ur l

y r at es. Because we co n cl ud e t h at t h e di st r i ct co ur t di d n o t ab use 5 it s d is c r e t io n

in mak in g t h e s e d e t e r min a t io n s , w e a ffir m. 6 B ACK GROUND 7 O n O c t o be r 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 , t hi s C o ur t i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n i

n Shain v. E llison , 2 7 3 F .3 d 5 6 (2 d C i r. 8 2 0 0 1 ) , i

n w hi c h i t d e t e r m i ne d , r e l y i ng o n i t s p r e vi o u s d e c i s i o ns i

n W achtler v. County of

Her kimer , 9 3 5 F .3 d

7 7 (2 d C i r. 1 9 9 4 ), W

alsh v

. F r anco , 849 F
. 2d 66 (2d Ci

r. 1988), an d W

e be r v . De ll , 804 F
. 2d 1 0 7 9 6 ( 2 d

C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ) , t h a t it w a s c le ar ly e s t a b lis h e d t h a t a c o rr e c t io n s o ffic e r may n o t p e r fo r m a s t r ip 1 1 s e ar c h o f a p r e - t r ia l d e t a in e e c h ar g e d o n ly w it h a mis d e me an o r a b s e n t an in d iv id

u a liz e d , r e a s o n a

b le 1 2 s u s p i c i o n

t h a t t h e d e t a i

n e e p o s s e s s e s co n t r ab an d o r w e a p o n s . Se e Sh ain , 2 7 3 F. 3 d a t 5 9
. I n t he 13 wake o f

t h i s deci s i o n , a n

um b er o f l aws ui t s ch al l engi

n g s t r ip s earch

po l i ci es were co m

men ced 1 4 t h

roug h o u t N e wY o rk

State
. See, e.g. , C o m

p l a i n t , M cB ean v. Cit

y of New Y ork, No
. 02-cv -5426 1 5 (S .D .N .Y . J

u l y 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 ); C o m

p l a i n t , Kelsey v. Sch oh arie Coun ty, New Y ork, No
. 1:04- cv -00299 1 6 (N .D .N .Y . M ar. 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 ); C o m p l a i n t , Pr itc ha r

d v . Co un ty

of Er ie , N o . 0 4 c v 0 5 3 4 ( W
. D
. N
. Y
. J u ly 1 7 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ). 18 On

J un e 29, 2004, A

ppel l an t s Ni ch o l e M ari e M cDa

n i el an d L es s i e L ee D av i es f i l ed a 1 9 co m

p l a i n t i n th e U n i te d S ta te s D i s tr i c t C our t f

orth e N or th e rn

D i s tr i c t of

N e wY or k

on b e h a l f of 2 0 t he m s e l

ve s and o t he r s s i m i l ar l y s i t u a t e d , a s s e r t i

ng t ha t t he S c he ne c t a dy C o unt y S he r i f f ’s D e p ar t me nt 2 1 ma i

n ta i n e d a p o l i cy , i m p l e me n te d b y s e n i orof f i c e r s i n c l u d i n g A p p e l l e e s H arry

B u f f ar d i , G or d on4 1 P o l l ar d , and

R o be r t E l

w e l l , o f s t r ip

- s e ar c hi

ng a l l i nd i vi d u a l s w ho w e r e i

nc ar c e r a t e d

a t t he 2 Sch e n e c t a dy

C o un t y J a i l an d p l a c e d i n j a i l c l o t h i n g , re g ard l e s s o f

t h e c ri me w i t h w h i c h t h e y w e re 3 c har g e d

. T he c o m p l a i nt s o u g ht c o m

p e ns a t o ry and p uni t i ve d ama g e s , a s w e l l a s d e c l ar a t o r y and 4 i n j un ct i v e r el i ef

. T h e par t i es v i go r o usl

y l i t i gat ed t h i s act i o n

f o ra per i o d o f mo r e t h an

t h r ee year s, 5 wi t h v ari o us at t o rn ey s f

o r t h e pl ai n t i f f cl as s s pen di

n g mo re t h an

1000 h o urs wo rki

n g o n t h e ca s e. 6 Th

roug h o u t t h e c o urs e o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n , A

p p e l l e e s ma i

n t a i n e d t h a t t h e c l a s s me m

b e rs w e re 7 me r e l

y “r e qu i r e d t o c hang e i

nt o j a i l uni f o r m s i n t he p r e s e nc e o f

a c o rr e c t i o ns o f

f i c e ro f t he s ame s e x” 8 an d

t h a t t h e S c h e n e c t a dy C o un t y J a il h a d n o fo r ma l p o lic y o f s t r ip s e ar c h in g a ll d e t a in e e s . U lt ima t e ly, 9 h o wev er, t h ey

agreed t o t h e t erm s o f

a s et t l em en t , pursuan t t o wh i ch A ppel l ees agreed t o s ub s t an t i al 1 0 i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f and t he c r e a t i o n o f a s e t t l e me nt f

und t o t a l i ng $ 2
. 5 m i l l i o n. T h e s e ttl e me n

t a g r e e me n

t, 1 1 s i g n e d on J

u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , i

n d i c a te d th a t A p p e l l an ts ’ c oun s e l

w ou l d p e ti ti on th e c our t f

oran aw ar d of 12 at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees “ i n t h e am o un t n o t t o ex cee d 26%” o f

t h e t o t al s et t l em en t f un d, an d a l s o p r ov i d e d

f or 13 t h e separ at e r ei

m b ur semen t o f admi n i st r at i v e ex pen ses. 1 4 D ur ing t h e li t ig a t io n o f t h is c a s e , c o un s e l fo r Ap p e ll an t s a ls o a c t e d a s c o un s e l fo r t h e p la int if fs 15 i n t wo o t h er act i o n s – eac h i n i t i at ed pri o r t o t he f

i l i n g o f t h e co m pl ai n t i n t h i s cas e – all egi

n g t h at 1 6 o t h e r c o un

t i e s i n N e wY o rk

ma i n t a i n e d i m p e rm i s s i b l e s t ri p s e arc h p o l i c i e s . See C o m

p l a i n t , Kahle r 17 v . R e nss e lae r

C ou nty , N o . 1 :0 3 -c v -1 3 2 4 (N .D .N .Y
. O c t
. 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 ); C o m p l a i n t , Mar iot t v . Co un ty 18 o f Mo n tg ome ry , N o . 5 : 0 3

- c v- 0 0 5 3 1 ( N
. D
. N
. Y
. Ap r . 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 )

. I n Kahle r , t h e part i es reach ed a 1 9 s e t t l e me nt i

n M a r c h 2 0 0 4 , a

bo u t t hr e e mo nt hs p r i o rt o t he i ni t i a t i o n o f t he i ns t ant s u i t , w hi c h t he 2 0 d i s t ri c t c o urt u l

t i ma t e l y a p p rov e d i n s u b s t an t i a l p art
. See M o t i o n

t o C e rt i f y C l a s s an d f o r P re l i m i n ary 2 1 A

p p rov a l o f C l a s s A c t i o n

Se t t l e me n

t , K ah le r v . Ren s s e lae r

C ou nty , No
. 1:03- cv -01324 ( N.D. N.Y.Because uncl ai med p o r t i o n s o f

t h e f un d r ev er t ed t o t h e def

en dan t , at t o rn ey s’ f

ees as a 1 p e rc e n t a g e o f t h e f un d a c t u a l l y p a i d t o p l a i n t i f f s w e re u l t i ma t e l y h i g h e r. See Ni lsen v. Y

ork C ou nty , 400 F
. Supp. 2d 266, 287 (D. M e. 2005) (di s cus s i n g Kahle r

). 5 1 M ar. 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 ); O rd e r, Kahl er v . R e n sselaer Cou nt ry , No
. 1:03- cv -01324 ( N.D. N.Y. Sept
. 23, 2 2 0 0 4 )

. C o uns e l

i n Kahl er recei

v ed at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees o f ap p r o x i mat el y $442, 700 o ut o f

a t o t al 3 s e t t l e me nt f

und o f $ 2
. 7 m i l l i o n, a bo u t 1 6 % o f

t he f und

. I n Mar iot t , t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t g r ant e d t he 1 4 p l ai

n t i f f s’ m o t i o n f o rp ar t i al su m mar y j u d g ment i

n A p r i l 2 0 0 6 , co n cl

u d i n g t h at Mo n

t g o mer y Co u n t y ’s 5 j ai l

po l i ci es i

n cl uded an un co n s t i t ut i o n al s t ri p s earch f o r wh i ch t he c o un

t y was l i ab l e (al

t h o ugh 6 r e a c h i

n g n o d e c i s i on

a s to th e s co pe o f dam a g e s ) an d th a t p l a i n ti f f s ’ c oun s e l , a s c oun s e l

to a 7 p r e v a i l i

n g p ar ty i n an a c ti on b r ou g h

t un d e r 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 3 , w e r e e n ti tl e d to as ta tu tor y

aw ar d of 8 i n t er i m a t t o rn e y s ' f

e e s . M arrio tt v. Coun ty o

f M on tg ome ry , 426 F
. Supp. 2d 1, 6-12 ( N.D. N.Y. 9 20 0 6 )

. T h e p ar ti e s th e r e a f te r r e a c h e d a s e ttl e me n

t, w h i c h r e c e i

v e d f i n a l a p p r ov a l i n M ay 2007, 10 resul

t i n g i n an at t o rn ey s ' f

ees awa rd o f $600, 000 o ut o f

a t o t al s et t l em en t f un d o f $2 m i l l i o n , o r 30% 1 1 o f

t h e f un d

. See M o t i o n t o A

p p rov e C o n s e n

t J u d g me n t (Ex h i b i t A , Se t t l e me n

t A g re e me n

t ), Mar r iot t 12 v. Coun t

y o f M on tg ome ry , No
. 5:03- cv -00531 ( N.D. N.Y. A pr. 13, 2007); Order Gr an t i n g F i n al 1 3 Ap p r o v al o f

C l a s s A c t i o n

Se t t l e me n

t an d J u d g me n t , M arrio tt v. Coun ty o

f M on tg ome ry , N o. 1 4 5 :0 3 -c v -0 0 5 3 1 (N .D .N .Y . M ay 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 ). 1 5 O n S e p t e m be r5 , 2 0 0 7 , t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t i n t hi s c a s e c o nd

u c t e d a f i na l f a i rne s s he ar i

ng 1 6 r e g ar d i

ng t he p r o p o s e d

s e t t l e me nt a g r e e me nt , d

ur i ng w hi c h i

t i s s u e d an o r a l

d e c i s i o n r e g ar d i

ng t he 1 7 a c c e p ta

b i l i ty o f th e a g r e e m e n t
. I n d e t e r m i ni ng t he p r o p e rf

e e s t o be aw ar d e d

t o c o uns e l

f r o m t he 18 co m

m o n f un d, t h e co ur t n o t ed it s dut y t o act as “ a gu ar di an

o f t h e r i ght s o f

ab sen t cl ass m em b er s” 19 an d t h e res ul

t i n g n eed t o “ appro ach

f ee a wards w i t h an ey e t o mo derat i o n . ” Oral

Dec i s i o n at 9.6 1 Fu r t he ro bs e r vi

ng t ha t t he c a l c u l a t i o n o f

a r e a s o na bl e f e e w a s c o m

m i t t e d t o i t s s o und d i s c r e t i o n, t he 2 co urt i

n di cat ed t h at “ [i ]n

t h e pas t , b o t h

t h e l o des t ar an d t h e percen t age o f f un d met h o ds h av e b een 3 av ai l ab l e t o di s t ri ct j udges i n cal cul at i n g at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees i n co m mo n f un d cas es , ” an d pro v i ded a b ri ef 4 e x p l an a t i o n o f e a c h a p p roac h

. Id. at 9-10. A s t h e co urt n o t ed, un der t h e l o des t ar met h o d: 5 [T]h e d i s t ri c t c o urt s c ru t i n iz e s t h e f

e e p e t i t i o n t o a s c e rt a i

n t h e nu m

b er o f h o urs 6 r e a s o n a

b ly bille d t o t h e c la s s an d t h e n mu lt ip lie s t h a t fig ur e b y a n a p p r o p r iat e h o ur ly 7 r a te [
. ] [ O ] n c e th a t i n i ti a l c om p u t a t i on h a s b e e n ma d e , th e d i s tr i c t c our t m ay , i n i ts 8 d i s c r e t i o n, i nc r e a s e t he l o d e s t arby

a p p l y i ng a m u l t i p l i e rba s e d

o n o t he rl e s s o bj e c t i

ve 9 f

act o r s such

as t h e r i sk o f

l i t i gat i o n an d t h e per f

o r man ce o f

t h e at t o rn ey s. 10 11 Id. at 9. T h e co urt s t at ed t h at t h e perce n t age met h o d, b y co n

t rast , i n v o l v es s et t i n g “ s o me perce n

t age 12 o f

t h e reco v ery

as t h e f ee,” an d reco gn ized t h at , wh et h er usi n g t h e perce n

t age m et h o d o r l o des t ar 1 3 me t h o d

o f c a lc u lat in g a t t o rn e ys ’ fe e s , a c o ur t is g u id e d

b y t h e fa c t o r s ar t ic u lat e d b y t h is C ir c u it in 14 Goldber

ger i n det erm i n i n g a “reas o n ab l e co m

mo n f un d f ee.” Id. a t 9

- 1 0 ; see Gol db erger 209 F
. 3d 1 5 a t 4 7 , 5 0
. E ar l i e ri n th e f a i rn e s s h e ar i

n g , th e c our t h a d

n ote d th a t th e r e qu e s te d

amoun t of 2 6 % of 16 t h e t o t al

s et t l em en t f un d, o r $650, 000, was equi v al en t t o a l o des t ar m

ul t i pl i er o f 1. 98 t o 2. 24. 1 7 T he d i s t r i c t c o ur t t he n e m bar k e d u p o n a d i s c u s s i o n o f

t hi s C o ur t 's d e c i s i o n i

n Arbo r Hi ll 18 Conc er

ned Citiz ens Ne ighborhood A s s ociation v. County of A lbany , 4 9 3 F .3 d

1 1 0 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 7 ), 19 s uper

s eded by 5 2 2 F .3 d

1 8 2 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 8 ), qu o t i

n g o ur o b s e rv a t i o n t h a t “ t h e me an i n g o f t h e t e rm 2 0 ‘ l od e s tar ’ h a s s h i f te d ov e rti me an d i ts v alue as a m e ta

p h orh a s d e te r i or a te d

to th e p oi

n t of 21 un

h el pf ul n es s . ” Oral Dec i s i o n at 10 (quo t i n g Arbo r Hi ll , 493 F
. 3d at 117). In pl ace o f t h e t radi t i o n al 22 l o des t ar met h o d, t h e di s t ri ct co urt ch aract eri zed Arbo r Hi ll a s h ol d i

n g th a t: 2 3 T h e b e t t e rc o ur s e [ an d ] t h e o n e mo s t c o n s is t e n t w it h a t t o rn e ys ’ fe e s jur is p ru d e n c e is 2 4 f

orth e d i s tr i c t c our t, i

n e x e r c i s i n g i ts c on s i d e r a

b l e d i s c r e ti on , to b e ar i

n m i n d a l l of 2 5 t he c a s e s p e c i f i c var i a bl e s t ha t t hi s c o ur t and

o t he rc o ur t s have i d e nt i f

i e d a s r e l e vant 26 t o t h e reas o n abl en es s o f at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees i n s et t i n g a reas o n ab l e h o url

y rat e.7 1 A c c or d i

n g l y , th e r e a s on a

b l e h our l y r a te i s th e r a te a p ay

i n g c l i e n t w ou l d b e w i l l i n g to 2 p ay. 3 4 I d. a t 1 0
. Th e c ou rt i

n d i c a te d th a t th e f

a c to rs re l e v an

t to an y s u c h d e te rm

i n a ti on w e re t h o se 5 d e s c r i

be d i n Johns on v. Geor

gia Highw

ay Expre s s , Inc. , 4 8 8 F .2 d

7 1 4 (5 t h C i r. 1 9 7 4 ), abrogated 6 on other grounds by B lanchar d v. B er geron , 4 8 9 U
. S
. 8 7 , 9 2

- 9 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , a s w e l l a s t he und e r l

y i ng 7 i n t uit i o n s t h at “ a r easo n ab l e payi n g cl i en t wi sh es t o spen d t h e m

i n i m um n ecessary t o l i

t i gat e t h e case 8 ef f ect i v el y ” an d t h at a payi

n g cl i e nt 's ne g o t i at i

n g p o si t i o n m ay b e st r en gt h en ed b y

t h e at t o r n ey s’ 9 “ d e s i

re t o o b t a i

n t h e re p u t a t i o n a l

b e n ef i t s t h a t m i g h t a c c ru e f rom b e i n g a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e c a s e .” 1 0 O r a l

D e c i s i o n a t 1 1
. Fi

na l l y , c i t i ng t hi s C o ur t ’s d e c i s i o n i

n Por z ig v. Dres dner

, Kle inw or t, B ens on, 11 N or th Am e r ic a LLC, 497 F
. 3d 133 (2d Ci r. 2007), t h e di s t ri ct co urt c ha r a c t eri zed Arbo r Hi ll as 1 2 r e qu ir in g a

c o ur t t o “ d e t e r min [ e ] t h e r e a s o n a b le h o ur ly r a t e fo re a c h

a t t o rn e y a

n d t h e r e a s o n a

b le 1 3 n u mb e ro f h o ur s e x

p e n d e d an d mu lt ip ly[ ] t h e t w o fig ur e s t o g e t h e r t o o b t a in t h e p r e s u mp t iv e ly 14 reas o n ab l e aw ard. ” Oral Dec i s i o n at 12. 1 5 D r aw i

n g u p on “ th e f a c tor s . . . ou tl i

n e d , ” th e D i s tr i c t C our t th e n d e te r m i n e d th a t a p p l i c a ti on 16 o f

t h e per cen

t age m et h o d wo ul d b e i

n app r o pr i at e, ch o o si

n g i n st ead “ t o det er m

i n e wh at amo un

t [ was] 1 7 r e a s o na

bl e u s i ng t he f a c t o r s a r t i c u l a t e d i n Gol db erger an d

th e mos t r e c e n

t Arbo r Hi ll deci s i o n . ” Id. 1 8 a t 1 2
. R e g ar d i

n g th e f i r s t Gol db erger f

act o r , t h e t i

me an d l ab o rex

pen dedb y

co un sel i n t h e co ur se 1 9 o f

p r o s e c u t i ng t he c a s e , t he d is t r i c t c o ur t r e c o g niz e d t ha t “c l a s s c o uns e l

p u t s u bs t ant i a l t i me and 2 0 e f

f o r t i nt o t hi s c a s e , ” b u t a l s o c o nc l u d e d t ha t t hi s t i

m e and e f f o r t w a s s u f

f i c i e nt l y c o m p e ns a t e d by 2 1 aw ard i

n g f e e s d e t e rm

i n e d b y t h e a t t o rn e y s ’ o rd i

n ary h o url y rat e s . Id

. a t 1 2 -1 3 . M o re o v e r, t h e c o u rt 22 i n di cat ed t h at a m

ul t i pl i er was i

n appro pri at e i

n l i gh t o f t h e f act t h at co un s el

h ad prev i o us l

y wo rked 2 3 on tw o s i

m i l ar c a s e s i n th e s ame j u d i c i a l

d i s tr i c t, i n w h i c h “ s ome of th e g r oun d

w or k f orth i s l i ti g a ti on8 1 was al

ready es t ab l i s h ed.” Id. at 13. A s t o t h e s eco n d f act o r, t h e co m

pl ex i t y o f t h e ca s e, t h e di s t ri ct 2 c our t d e te r m

i n e d th a t th e c a s e a t b arw a s “ n ot p ar ti c u l ar l y c om p l e x ” a s i t w a s “ an or d i n ary c i v i l r i g h ts 3 cas e i

n wh i ch l i ab i l i t y appea r[ ed] r eas o n ab l

y cert ai n . ” Id. W i

t h regard t o t h e t h i

rd f act o r, t h e ri s ks 4 i n v o l v ed i n t h e part i cul ar l i

t i gat i o n , i t f o un d t h at “ l i ab i l i

t y was reas o n ab l

y cert ai n ” an d t h at al

t h o ugh 5 “ t h e r e w a s r is k o n t h e is s u e o f d ama g e s , ” t h a t r is k w a s o f lit t le imp o r t a

n c e t o c o un s e l, w h o w o u ld 6 h av e b e e n

s t a t u t o r ily

e n t it le d t o a t t o rn e ys ' fe e s a s t h e p r e v a ili n g p ar t y in a § 1 9 8 3 a c t io n , e v e n if o n ly 7 n o m

i n a l d ama g e s w e re aw ard e d

. Id . a t 1 3 -1 4

. Th e c o urt f

urt h e r n o t e d

t h a t , a s t o t h e f

o urt h f a c t o r, 8 t he qu a l i

t y o f r e p r e s e nt a t i o n, c o uns e l

“d i d a f i ne j o b, ” bu t w e r e a d e qu a t e l y c o m p e ns a t e d by t he 9 o rd i

n ary h o url y rat e c o un s e l

c h arg e d

. Id. a t 1 4
. A s t o t h e fift h fa c t o r , t h e p o r t io n o f t h e o v e r a ll 10 s et t l em

en t al l o cat ed t o at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees , t h e percen

t age ari s i n g f ro m i t s us e o f t h e Arbo r

Hi ll me th od 1 1 ( r o u g hl

y 1 3 % ) w a s “sq u ar e l

y w i t hi n t he r ang e o f

r e a s o na bl e p e r c e nt a g e s i

n s u c h a c a s e ” a s t he i

ns t ant 1 2 o n e . Id. W i

th r e g ar d to t h e l a s t Gol db erger f a c t o r , p u bl i c p o l i c y , t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t t o o k no t e o f “t he 13 co m

pell i n g pub l i c po l i cy reas o n s f o r keepi n g an ey e o n at t o rn ey s ' f

ees i n cl as s act i o n

cas es . ” Id. at 1 4 1 5
. F i

n a l l y , th e c our t b r i e f

l y n ote d th a t Arbo r

Hi ll al s o requi

red a di s t ri ct co urt t o co n s i der wh et h er 1 5 th e b ur d e n

of l i ti g a ti n g th e c a s e h a d p r e c l

u d e d an a tto rn e y f r om a c c e p ti n g oth e rg a i

n f u l e m p l oy me n t. 16 A f

t er t h i s di s cus s i o n , t h e di s t ri ct co urt repea t e d i t s deci s i o n n o t t o em

pl o y t h e perce n

t age 17 met h o d o r appl

y an y t y pe o f m ul t i pl i er t o t h e f

ee cal cul at ed b y m

ul t i pl y i n g t h e at t o rn ey s ’ h o url

y rat es 18 b y

t h e n um b ero f h o ur s wo r ked

. A

t t h e same t i

me, t h e co ur t o b serv ed t h at i t was awar di

n g at t o r n ey s’ 1 9 f e e s b a s e d u p o n t h e rat e s o rd i

n ari l y b i l l e d b y c l a s s c o un s e l , e v e n t o t h e e xt e n t t h a t t h o s e rat e s w e re 2 0 s u

b s tan ti a l l y h i g h e rth an

t h e prev ai l i n g r a te i

n th e N or th e rn

D i s tr i c t of

N e wY or k

. T h i s me th od 2 1 y i e l d e d a t t o rn e y s ' f

e e s i n t h e amo un

t o f $ 3 4 4 ,7 9 5
. T he d i s t r i c t c o ur t a l s o a l l o w e d t he r e i m bur s e me nt9 1 o f $9, 001. 50 i

n li t i gat i o n ex pen s es an d $107, 000 i

n adm i n i s t rat i v e ex pen s es . T h e t o t al

awa rd t h us 2 am

o un t ed t o $460, 796. 50. 3 A f

t er co un s el

f o r A ppel l an t s o b j ect ed t o t h e reduct i o n o f t h ei r f ees , t h e di s t ri ct co urt cl ari f i ed 4 i t s r e l i anc e u

p o n Arbo r

Hi ll i n t he f o l l o w i ng f a s hi o n: 5 W

h a t I ' m s ay i n g a b out Arbo r

Hi ll is t h is , I ' m s imp ly d is p e n s in g w it h t h e c la s s ic 6 def

i n i t i o n o f t he l o des t ar met h o d. If t h at were t o b e appli ed as t h e wa y i t was 7 c o ns i s t e nt l y a p p l i e d , i t w o u l d be i

rr e l e vant w he r e an a t t o rne y w a s f r o m , i t w o u l d be 8 w h a t t h e p r e v a iling r a t e is fo r a t t o rn e y s in t h is ar e a . T h a t ' s t h e a s p e c t o f Arbo r Hi ll 9 t h at I' m

di s pen s i n g wi t h wh en I say t h at ' s n o l o n ger t h e s t an dard o f wh at co n s t i

t ut es 10 a reas o n ab l e at t o rn ey' s f ee. T h at i s as s ub s t an

t i al an ex pl an at i o n wh y s o me o f t h e f ees 1 1 a s c a l c u l a t e d i n t he f e e s c he d u l e s u bm it t e d b y c l a s s c o uns e l , t he y w o u l d have 1 2 e x c e e d e d

th a t tr a d i

ti o n al rat e i

n th e N or th e rn

D i s tr i c t of

N e wY or k

. I ' v e n ot 13 di s co un

t ed t h em as a res ul t o f t h at
. T h at ' s t h e i

m pet us o f t h e Arbo r

Hi ll d e c i s i o n. 14 Oral

Dec i s i o n at 26-27. 1 5 O n N o ve m be r5 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e d is t r ic t c o urt i s s u e d a f i na l d e c i s i o n and

o r d e ra p p r o vi ng t he 1 6 s e ttl e me n

t an d e x p l i c i tl y i n c or p or a ti n g t h e c on

te n t of i ts or a l d e c i s i on , i

n c l u d i n g th e aw ar d

of 17 at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees . T h e co urt s l i gh

t l y i n creas ed t h e t o t al am

o un t t o b e pai d t o co un s e l , g r a nt i ng 1 8 a ttor n e y s ' f

e e s i n th e amoun

t of $ 3 4 3 , 7 4 4
. 5 0 , r e i

m b ur s e me n t of l i ti g a ti on e x p e n s e s i n th e amou n

t of 1 9 $ 1 0 , 0 5 3
. 3 1 , an d a dm i n i s tr a ti v e e x p e n s e s i n th e amoun

t of $ 1 0 7 , 2 3 3
. 4 0 , r e s u l

ti n g i n a f i n a l aw ar d of 20 $461, 031. 21. 21 T h i s appea l f o l l o wed. 22 DI SCU SSI ON 2 3 W e re v i e w a d i s t ri c t c o urt ’ s aw ard o f a t t o rn e y ’ s f

e e s f o r a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n , Goldber

ger v. 24 Int egr

ated Res., Inc. , 20 9 F. 3d43 , 47

- 48 ( 2dCi r . 20 0 0 ) , “w hic h o ccur s ‘ wh en ( 1) [ t h e co ur t ’s ] 2 5 d e c is io n

r e s t s o n an e rr o ro f law( s u c h

a s a p p lic at io n o f t h e w r o n g le g a l p r i n c ip le ) o rc le ar ly10 1 e rr on e ou s f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g , or( 2 ) i

ts d e c i s i on

– th ou g h n ot n e c e s s ar i l

y th e p r od u c t of a l e g a l e rr oror 2 a c l ea r l

y er r o n eo u s f

ac t u al f i n d i n g

– ca n n o t b e l o ca t edwit h i

n t h e r ange o f

p er m i ssi b l e d ec i si o n s. ’” 3 Kic kham Hanle

y P

. C. v. Kodak

R et. I ncomeP lan , 5 5 8 F. 3 d

2 0 4 , 2 0 9 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i

ng 4 Vincen ty v
. B lo omb erg , 4 7 6 F
. 3 d 7 4 , 8 3 ( 2 d C i

r . 2 0 0 7 ) )

. “ ‘ [ A ] b u s e of d i s c r e ti on ’

– a l r e a dy on e of 5 t h e mo st def

er en t i al st an dar ds o f

r ev i ew – t akes o n speci al si gn i f i can ce wh en

r ev i ewi n g f ee dec i si o n s” 6 b eca

us e “ ‘ t h e di s t ri ct co urt , wh i ch i s i n t i mat el y f am i l i ar wi t h t h e n uan ces o f t h e cas e, i s i

n a f ar b et t er 7 p o si

t i o n t o mak e [ su ch] d ec i si o n s t h an i s an ap p el l at e c o ur t , whi ch m u st wo r k f r o m a c o l d r ec o r d

. ’” 8 Goldber

ger , 209 F
. 3d at 47-48 ( quo t i n g In re Bolar P

har m. Co. Sec. Lit ig. , 966 F
. 2d 731, 732 (2d 9 C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ( per cur iam )). 10 In

ch al l en gi n g t h e d i s t r i c t co urt ’ s at t o rn ey s ’ f ee de t erm i n at i o n s , A

ppel l an t s make s ev eral 1 1 ar g u me n

ts
. F i r s t, t h e y c o n te n d

th a t th e d i s tr i c t c our t c om m i tte d l e g a l e rr or b y f a i l i n g to c a l c u l a te 12 at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees us i n g t h e percen

t age met h o d, s ugges t i

n g “ [t ]h e percen

t age met h o d i s t h e pres um pt i v e, 1 3 p re f

e rre d me t h o d ” i

n t h i s C i rc u i t
. A ppel l an t s ’ Br. at 9. Seco n d, A

ppel l an t s s ugges t t h at t h e di s t ri ct 1 4 c o ur t i

m p r o p e r l y r e l i e d o n Arbo r Hi ll t o j us t i f

y i t s deci s i o n

n o t t o us e t h e perce n

t age m et h o d, s i n ce 15 t h at cas e an d o t h ers c i t ed b y t h e co urt i

n v o l v ed s t at ut o ry

f e e s hi f t i ng rat h er t h an

a co m mo n f un d. 16 T h i

rd, t h ey as s ert t h at , wh et h er o r n o t t h e di s t ri ct co u r t w a s w i t h i n i t s di s cret i o n

i n em pl o y i n g a 1 7 m

o d i f i e d

- l o d e s t arme t ho d

t o c a l c u l a t e a t t o rne y s ’ fe e s , it c o m m i t t e d e rr o r s i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o f

t he 18 Gol db erger fa c t o r s , in c lu d in g t h e u s e o f a n u np r e c e d e n t e d fa c t o rt o p e n a liz e c o un s e l fo rt h e ir 1 9 e x

p e ri e n c e i n l i t i g a t i n g s i m i l ar c a s e s . W e c o n s i d e r e a c h o f t h e s e arg u me n

t s i n t urn . 20 I . T

he Dis tric t Cour

t’ s Dec ision Not to Em

ploy a Perc entage-of

-Fund Method 21 A

pp el l an t s co n t en d t h at t h e di st r i ct co ur t f ai l ed t o co n si derb asi

n g it s cal cul at i o n

o f at t o r n ey s’W h i l e t h e Arbo r

Hi ll p an e l

i n d i c a t e d i t s p re f e re n c e f o r a b an d o n me n t o f t h e t e rm 2
“ l o des t ar” al

t o get h er, t h e appro ach

ado pt ed i n t h at cas e i s n o n et h el es s a deri v at i v e o f t h e l o des t ar met h o d. T o em

ph as ize t h e s i

m i l ar r o l e o f

b o t h t h e l o des t ar met h o d an d Arbo r Hi ll ’ s met h o d as a l te rn a ti v e s to th e p e r c e n

ta g e - of

- f un d a p p r oa c h , w e r e f

e rto Arbo r

Hi ll ’ s a p p r oa c h a s a “ v ar i an t” o r“m o d i f i e d ” l o d e s t arme t ho d

t hr o u g ho u t t hi s o p i

ni o n. 11 1 f ees o n a perce n t age o f t h e f un d s ecured b y co un s el , t h at i t f l o ut ed a “ cl ear t ren d i

n t h e l aw t o wards 2 [ u s i

ng ] t he p e r c e nt a g e me t ho d , ” Ap p e l l ant s ’ B r . a t 1 1 , and e ve n t ha t i

t d e f i e d an i ns t ru c t i o n by

t he 3 S u p r e me C o ur t i

n B lum v. Stenson r equ i

r i n g t h e use o f

t h e per cen

t age m et h o d i

n co m mo n f un d cases, 4 s ee 465 U.S
. 886, 900 n
. 16 (1984) (o b s erv i n g t h at “ [u] n l i

ke t h e cal cul at i o n o f at t o rn ey ’ s f ees un der 5 t h e ‘ co m

m o n f un d do ct ri

n e,’ wh ere a reas o n ab l e f

ee i s b as ed o n a percen

t age o f t h e f un d b es t o wed 6 o n t h e c la s s , a

r e a s o n a b le fe e un d e r[ 4 2 U
. S
. C
. ] § 1 9 8 8 r e fle c t s t h e amo un t o f a t t o rn e y t ime 7 re a s o n a

b l y e x p e n d e d i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n ” ). 8 A

p p e l l an ts ’ a s s e r ti on th a t th e d i s tr i c t c our t “ r e f u s e d to c on s i d e ru s i

n g th e p e r c e n

ta g e me th od 9 a t a l l , ” Ap p e l l ant s ’ B r . a t 1 5 , i s f a c t u a l l y i nc o rr e c t
. T he c o ur t d e s c r i be d bo t h t he l o d e s t ar me t ho d and 1 0 t h e p e r c e n

t a g e me t h o d

o f c a lc u lat in g a t t o rn e ys ’ fe e s in it s b e n c h d e c is io n b e fo r e in d ic a t in g t h a t it 1 1 w o u l d

a p p l y a var i ant o f t he f o r me r . I n i

t s w r i t t e n d e c i s i o n and o r d e r a

p p r o vi ng t he s e t t l e me nt , t he 2 1 2 c o ur t r e it e r a t e d

it s d e c is io n

t o u s e n e it h e r a l o d e s t a r mu lt ip lie rn o rt h e p e r c e n t a g e me t h o d

in 1 3 c a l c u l a t i

n g t h e f e e aw ard

. T h

u s , th e “ a s s e r ti on

th a t th e di s t ri c t c o ur t e rr on e ou s l y r e f u s e d e v e n to 1 4 c o n s id e ru s in g t h e p e r c e n t a g e a p p r o a c h is s qu ar e ly c o n

t r a d ic t e d b y t h e r e c o r d

. . . . [ T ] h e c o ur t c le ar ly 1 5 un d e rs t o o d t h a t i t c o u l d h av e aw ard e d a

p e rc e n t a g e f e e i n t h i s c a s e . It s i

m p l y c h o s e n o t t o d o s o .” 16 Goldber

ger , 209 F
. 3d at 50-51. 17 A l

t h o ugh we h av e ac kn o wl edged t h at “ t h e t ren d i n t hi s C i rcui t i s t o ward t h e perce n

t age 1 8 me t ho d , ” i

t r e ma i ns t he l aw i

n t hi s C i r c u i t t ha t c o ur t s “m

ay aw ar d a t t o rne y s ’ fe e s i n c o m mo n f u ndIn addi t i o n t o t h e ca s es an d o t h er so urces ci t ed in f ra , see I n re A uct io n Ho uses A nt it rust 3 Liti gation , 197 F
. R.D. 71 (S

. D.N. Y. 2000) , f o r an ex pan ded di s cus s i o n

o f t h e di s adv an

t ages asso ci at ed w i

t h t h e l o dest aran d p er cen

t age- o f

- f un d ap pr o ach es t o co m

mo n f un d f ee awar ds. 12 1 cas es un der ei

t h er t h e ‘ l o des t ar’ met h o d o r t h e ‘ percen t age o f t h e f

un d’ met h o d. ” Wal- M

art S to res, 2 Inc. v. VISA U.S. A

. , Inc. , 3 9 6 F. 3 d 9 6 , 1 2 1 ( 2 d Cir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s ee als o Ce nt. States Se. v. Merc k-M edco , 3 504 F
. 3d 229, 249 (2d Ci r. 2007) (“ In co m

mo n f un d cas es , co urt s t y

pi call y us e ei t h er t h e l o des t ar 4 me t ho d

o rt he p e r c e n t a g e me t ho d t o c o m p u t e a t t o rney s’ f

e e s. ” ) ; Master

s v. Wilhelmina Model 5 A gency

, Inc. , 473 F
. 3d 423, 436 (2d Ci r. 2007) (“ Of co urse, co urt s may co n t i n ue t o us e t h e l o des t ar 6 a ppro ach

al o n e i n cal cul at i n g at t o rn ey s f

ees i n co m mo n f un d cas es . ”). A

n d t h i s Co urt h as n ev er 7 t r e a t e d

t he S u p r e me C o ur t ’s d i c t a

i n B lum as deman di

n g a si n gl e met h o d f

o rcal cul at i

n g at t o rn ey s’ 8 f e e s i n c o m mo n f un d c a s e s o r ot h e rw i s e f

o re c l o s i n g t h e u s e o f

a l o d e s t ar a p p roac h

. See G oldber

ger , 9 2 0 9 F
. 3 d

a t 4 9 ( ob s e r v i

n g th a t “ B lum in d ic a t e s t h a t ‘ t h e p e r c e n t a g e - o f- t h e - fu n d

me t h o d is a v ia b le 10 al t ern at i v e’ ” (quo t i

n g Savoie v. M

er chants B ank, 166 F
. 3d 456, 460 (2d Ci r. 1999)) , an d n o t i

n g t h at 1 1 s i x oth e r c i r c u i ts , p os t- B lum , h av e gi

v en di s t ri ct co urt s t h e o pt i o n

o f ch o o s i n g ei t h er t h e perce n

t age 1 2 o r t h e l o d e s t ar me t h o d ). 1 3 Ap p e l l ant s no ne t he l e s s ur g e t hi s C o ur t t o a d o p t t he p e r c e nt a g e me t ho d a s t he p r e s u m

p t i ve 14 appro ach

t o f ee a wards o r t o ab an do n

t h e l o des t ar appro ach

al t o get he r , no t i

n g t h at s ev eral

o t h er 15 ci rcui t s h av e do n e s o . T h i s co urt h as co n s i dered t h e adv an t ages an d di s adv an

t ages o f t h e l o des t ar 1 6 an d

p e rc e n t a g e me t h o d s p re v i o u s l

y , s ee G oldber

ger , 209 F
. 3d 47-53, an d we n eed o n l y addres s t h em 17 b ri ef

l y h ere. 3 1 8 Th e l o d e s t ar me t h o d i s n o t p e rf

e c t
. It c re a t e s an

i n c e n t i v e f o r at t o rn e y s t o b i l l

a s man y h o u rs 1 9 a s p o s s ib le , t o d o un n e c e s s a r y w o r k , an d

fo rt h e s e r e a s o n s a ls o c an c r e a t e a d is in c e n t iv e t o e ar ly13 1 s e t t l e me n

t
. S e e id

. at 48-49 ( ci

t i n g Sa v oie , 1 6 6 F .3 d

a t 4 6 0 -6 1 ). U n d e r c e rt a i

n c o n d i t i o n s , mo re o v e r, 2 l o des t ar awa

rds can creat e t h e n ear o ppo s i t e i n cen t i v e, en co uragi

n g at t o rn ey s t o s et t l e b ef

o re t ri al 3 e ve n w he n i

t i s no t i n t he i r c l i e nt s ’ be s t i

nt e r e s t
. Whi l e und e rt he l o d e s t arme t ho d l aw ye r s s har e t he 4 “ d ow n s i d e ” r i s k

of tr i a l ( i

. e . , th e p os s i

b i l i ty of an a dv e r s e j u d g me n

t, an d h e n c e n o f

e e ) , th e y d o n ot 5 s h are i

n t h e p o t e n

t i a l e c o n o m i c “u p s i d e ” (i .e ., f

e e s a s a p e rc e n t a g e o f a l arg e c o m

mo n f u n d ), 6 e s p e c i a l l

y s i n c e t ri a l re qu i re s c o m p arat i v e l y f e w e r h o urs t h an

t h e p roce s s o f

t ri a l p re p arat i o n . See 7 J an e t C o o p e r A l e x an d e r, Do the Mer its Mat ter ? A Study of Settlementsin Secur ities C lass A ctions , 8 43 S T AN . L. R EV . 4 9 7 , 5 4 3 (1 9 9 1 ); J o h

n C . C o f f e e , Jr., Under

s tanding the P laintif

f ’s At torne

y: the 9 Impli cations of

E conomic Theor

y f or Pr ivate Enf

orcem ent of

Law through C

lass and Der ivative 10 A ctions , 86 C OL UM . L. R EV . 6 6 9 , 7 1 7 ( 1 9 8 6 ) (h e re i n a f t e r C o f f e e , U n d e r s ta n ding th e P la in ti

f f ’s 11 A ttorne

y )

. A l th ou g h th e d i s tr i c t c our t i s c h ar g e d w i th e n s ur i n g th e f a i rn e s s of a p r op os e d s e ttl e me n t, 1 2 i n c lu d i ng any l o d e s t ar - ba s e d

a t t o rne y s ’ fe e aw ar d , t hi s t a s k i s o f t e n c ha l l e ng i

ng i n c o m mo n f u nd 1 3 c a s e s , e s p e c i a l l

y be c a u s e – s i nc e t he a t t o rne y s ’ f

e e s ar e dr aw n f

r o m a c o m

mo n f und r a t he rt han be i

ng 1 4 p a i d

s e p ar a te l y b y th e d e f e n d an ts – th e r e i s l i ttl e i n c e n ti v e f or th e d e f e n d an ts to c on te s t th e s iz e of 15 t h e f

ee. T o t h e co n

t rar y , pl ai n t i f f s ’ an d def en dan t s ’ l awy ers s h are an i

n t eres t i n t h e appro v al

o f an 1 6 a g re e d

u p o n s e t t l e me n

t
. Goldber

ger , 2 0 9 F. 3 d

a t 5 2

- 5 3
. As a

r e s u l t , t he d i s t r i c t j u d g e “l o s [ e s ] t he 17 b en ef

i t o f an adv ersa ri al pro ces s , wh i ch may . . . i n f o rm [] an d s h arpen [] t h e j udi ci al i n qui ry . ” Doe 18 v . C

.I.A. , 5 7 6 F .3 d

9 5 , 1 0 7 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 9 ); s e e a lso B aker v. Carr , 3 6 9 U .S. 1 8 6 , 2 0 4 (1 9 6 2 ); 19 Goldber

ger , 2 0 9 F
. 3 d a t 5 3 ( “ I t i s n ot w i th ou t s i g n i f

i c an c e th a t w h e n [ l e a d c oun s e l f orp l a i n ti f f s on 20 appea l ] st o o d up at o ral argumen t t o pet i t i o n f o r a b i g g e r s l i ce o f

h i s cl i en t s ’ reco v ery , n o o n e s at 2 1 a d

j a c e n t t o h i m a t o p p o s i n g c o un s e l ’ s t a

b l e .” ).14 1 B u t t he p e r c e nt a g e me t ho d ha s i t s l i m i t a t i o ns a s w e l l

. As w e i

nd i c a t e d i n Goldber

ger , t h is 2 Ci rcui t ’ s ado pt i o n

o f t h e l o des t ar met h o d was preci pi t at ed b y t h e perce pt i o n

t h at p ercen

t age f ees 3 “t e nd e d

t o y i e l d t o o l i t t l e f o rt he c l i e nt
- c l a s s , and

an unj u s t i f

i e d ‘ g o ld e n h a r v e s t o f

f e e s ’ fo rt he 4 l awy

er. ” 209 F
. 3d at 48 (quo t i n g City of Detroit v. Gr innell Cor p. , 4 9 5 F .2 d 4 4 8 , 4 6 8 , 4 6 9 (2 d C i r. 5 1 9 7 4 ) (“ Gr inn e ll I ” ), abrogated on other

grounds by Goldber

ger , 2 0 9 F
. 3 d

a t 4 3 )

. P ar t ic u lar ly i

n 6 c a s e s t h a t r e s u lt in a v e ry lar g e mo n e t ary aw ar d , t h e p e r c e n t a g e me t h o d h o ld s t h e p o t e n t ia l t o r e s u lt 7 i n a ttor n e y s ’ f

e e s man y ti me s g r e a te rth an

th os e th a t w ou l d h av e b e e n e arn e d un d e rth e l od e s tarof 8 h our l

y r a te m u l ti p l i e d b y h our s w or k e d

. “ T h e p r i

n c i p a l an a l y ti c a l f l aw ” i n A p p e l l an ts ’ ar g u me n

t f or 9 a pres um

pt i v e perce n t age a ward as a “b en ch

mark” i n co m mo n f un d cas es l i es i

n t h e “ as s um

pt i o n t h at 1 0 t h e re i s s u

b s t an t i a l c o n t i n g e n c y ri s k i n e v e ry c o m m o n f un d c a s e ” t h a t w o u l d

j u s t i f y s u c h a m u l t i p l i e r. 11 Id. a t 5 2
. 1 2 M or e ov e r , a l th ou g h th e p e r c e n

ta g e me th o d h as th e a dv an ta g e of a l i g n i n g th e i n te r e s ts of 13 pl ai

n t i f f s an d t h ei r at t o rn ey s mo re f

ul l y b y al l o wi

n g t h e l at t er t o s h are i

n b o t h t h e ups i de an d do wn s i de 1 4 r is k

o f lit ig a t io n , it c an

c r e a t e p e r v e r s e in c e n

t iv e s o f it s o w n , p o t e n

t ia lly e n c o ur a g in g c o un s e l t o s e t t le 1 5 a c a s e p re ma t ure l

y o n c e t h e i

r opp o rt un i

t y c o s t s b e g i

n t o ri s e . See Co f

f e e , Under

s tanding the 16 P laintif

f ’s At torne

yat 687-90. A

n d as i n t h e ca s e o f t h e l o des t ar met h o d, n ei t h er def en s e co un s el 17 n o rt h e act ual pl ai n t i f f s h av e m uch o f an i

n cen t i v e un der t h e per cen

t age- o f

- f un d ap pr o ach

t o o pp o se 18 an

awa rd o f at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees , t h e l at t er s i

n ce “ [t ]h ey h av e n o real

i n cen t i v e t o m o un t a ch al l en ge t h at 1 9 wo u l d r esu l

t i n o n l y a ‘m i n u scu l e’ pro r

ata gai n f ro m a f ee reduc t i o n . ” Goldber

ger , 209 F
. 3d at 53 20 (ci

t i n g Cont’l I

ll. Sec. Lit ig. , 9 6 2 F .2 d

5 6 6 , 5 7 3 (7 t h

C i r. 1 9 9 2 )). 21 In

s h o rt , n ei t h er t h e l o des t ar n o r t h e perce n t age-o f -f un d appro ach

t o awa rdi n g at t o rn ey s ’ f

eesT h e di s t ri ct co urt i n t h i s cas e rel i ed o n

t h e o ri gi n al v ersi o n o f t h e Arbo r

Hi ll o p i n i o n . 4 See 4 9 3 F
. 3 d

1 1 0 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. F ol l ow i

n g a p e ti ti on f or r e h e ar i n g , th i s C our t ame n d e d

i ts o p i ni o n s ua s po nte . See 5 2 2 F. 3 d

1 8 2 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. Whi l e w e c i

t e t o t he ame nd e d

ve r s i o n, t he d iffe r e n c e s b e t w e e n

t h e t w o o p in io n s ar e imm a t e r ia l fo rt h e p ur

p o s e s o f t h is a

p p e a l. A s A pp el l an t s n o t e, t h e di st r i ct co ur t al so r ef er r ed t o o t h erst at ut o ry

f ee- sh i f t i n g cases, i n cl udi n g P or z ig v . Dres dn e r

, Kle inw or t, Bens on , No r th Am e r ic a LLC, 4 9 7 F .3 d 1 3 3 (2 d C i r. 15 1 in c o mmo n fu n d c a s e s is w it h o u t p r o b le ms . I t is fo rr e a s o n s s u c ha s t h o s e ju s t d is c u s s e d t h a t in 2 Gol db erger we decl i n ed t o “ j un k” t h e l o dest armet h o d i

n f av o ro f t h e pr esum

pt i v e o rex cl usi v e use 3 o f t h e p e rc e n

t a g e me t h o d , s e e id

. a t 4 7
- 5 3 , an d

i n s te a d l e f t th e d e c i s i on

a s to th e a

p p r op r i a te me th od 4 to “ th e d i s tr i c t c our t, w h i c h i s i n ti ma te l y f am i l i ar w i th th e n u an c e s of th e ca s e.” Id. a t 4 8
. W h ile 5 A p p e l l an ts a s s e r t th a t th e r e w ou l d

b e a b e n e f

i t i n a l l ow i n g “ d i s tr i c t j u d g e s . . . [ to] s te p aw ay f r om 6 t h e b us i

n es s o f an al y zi n g an d rev i ewi

n g at t o rn ey s ’ f

ee a ppl i cat i o n s , ” A

ppel l an t s ’ Re pl y Br. at 9, we 7 un der sco r e t h e i

m po r t an ce o f

t h e di st r i ct co ur t ’s du t y

“ t o act as a f

i du ci ar y wh o m ust serve as a 8 guardi an o f t h e ri gh t s o f ab s en t cl as s mem

b ers,” City of

Detr oit v. Gr innell Cor

p. , 560 F
. 2d 1093, 9 1 0 9 9 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 7 7 ) (“ G r in n e ll

II ” ) (i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n

mark s o m

i t t e d ) abrogated on other

grounds , 10 Goldber

ger , 2 0 9 F
. 3 d a t 4 3 , and r e a f f i r m t he r e qu i r e me nt o f a “se ar c hi ng a s s e s s me nt ” r e g ar d i

ng 11 at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees “ t h at s h o ul d pro perl

y b e perf o rm ed i n eac h cas e.” Goldber

ger , 209 F
. 3d at 52. E v en 12 were we n o t b o un d b y Ci rcui t precede n

t o n t h e m at t er, we wo ul d decli

n e t o h o l d o t h erwi s e. 13 I I . The D is tr ic t C our t’sR e lia nc eon A r b o r

H i ll 1 4 A

p p e lla n t s a ls o c o n

t e n d t h a t t h e d is t r ic t c o ur t imp e r mis s ib ly r e lie d o n t h is c o ur t ’ s d e c is io n in 15 A rbor Hill Conc er ned Citiz ens Ne ighborhood Ass ociation v. County of A lbany , 493 F
. 3d 110 (2d 1 6 C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) , s in c e t h a t c a s e a d dr e s s e d t h e u s e o f t h e lo d e s t ar m e t h o d i n t h e c o n t e xt o f s t a t u t o r ily 1 7 aw ard e d a t t o rn e y s ’ f e e s , rat h e r t h an

a c o m mo n f un d

. Th e y

s u g g e s t , inte r

ali a , t ha t r e l i anc e o n A rbor 42007), an d Johns on v. Geor gia Highw

ay Expre s s , Inc. , 4 8 8 F .2 d

7 1 4 (5 t h C i r. 1 9 7 4 ), abrogated on other grounds by Blanchard v

. B er geron , 4 8 9 U
. S
. 8 7 , 9 2

- 9 3 ( 1 9 8 9 )

. O urd i s c u s s i on in t h is s e c t io n a c c o un t s fo rt h e d is t r ic t c o ur t ’ s r e lia n c e o n t h o s e c a s e s a s w e ll. 16 1 Hi ll may h av e i

m pro perl y i n f l uen ced t h e di s t ri ct co urt ’ s deci s i o n t o s el ect a m o d i f i e d l o des t ar 2 a p p r o a c h r a t h e rt h an

a p e r c e n t a g e - o f- fu n d

a p p r o a c h , t h o u g h

t h e c o ur t ’ s b e n c h

d e c is io n d o e s n o t , in 3 f a c t , mak e i

t a t a l l e vi d e nt t ha t t he c a s e i

nf l u e nc e d t he c o ur t ’s s e l e c t i o n. 4 A

t t h e st ar t , we n o t e t h at i

t i s un cl earh o w an

y er r o ri n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’s deci si o n t o use 5 Arbo r

Hi ll ’ s mo di f

i ed l o des t ar appro ach , ev en as s um i n g s uch err o r o ccurred, c o u l d

c o m p e l a f i nd i ng 6 t ha t t he c o ur t s ho u l d have u s e d t he p e r c e nt a g e me t ho d i ns t e a d

. G i

ve n t ha t a d i s t r i c t c o ur t ha s t he 7 di scr et i o n

t o ch o o se ei

t h ert h e l o dest ar o r per cen t age- o f

- f un d app r o ach

i n cal cul at i n g at t o rn ey s’ f

ees, 8 see supra S e c ti on

I , an y e rr or i n a c our t’ s a

p p l i c a ti on of th e l od e s tar me th od w ou l d n ot n e c e s s i

tate 9 s e l e c t i o n

o f t h e p e rc e n

t a g e me t h o d

o n re man d

. 1 0 To t h e e xt e n t t h a t A p p e l l an t s ’ arg u me n

t d e p e n d s o n

t h e i n f e re n c e t h a t , h a d

t h e d i s t ri c t c o u rt 11 n o t ref

eren ced Arbo r

Hi ll , A ppel l an t s ’ s ugges t ed 26% f

ee wo ul d h av e s eem

ed m o re r eas o n ab l e, an 1 2 an a lys is o f

Arbo r Hi ll an d t h e d i s t ri c t c o urt ’ s re l i an c e o n t h a t d e c i s i o n s h o w s t h a t A p p e l l an t s ’ c o n c e rn 1 3 i s unf

o und e d

. I n Arbo r

Hi ll , t h i s Co urt pro po s ed t h e us e o f a m o di f i e d ve r s i o n o f

t h e l o des t ar 1 4 a p p roac h an d re c o m me n d e d a b an d o n me n t o f t h e t e rm

“ l o d e s t ar” f

o r t h e a l t e rn a t i v e t e rm 1 5 “p r esu m

p t i v el y r ea so n abl e f

ee . ” 5 2 2 F. 3 d at 1 8 3
. I n b r i ef , t h e Co ur t su g g est edt h at a d i st r i ct co u r t ’s 1 6 e f

f or ts to a p p r ox i ma te th e r e a s on a

b l e f e e th a t a c om

p e ti ti v e mar k e t w ou l d b e ar

– th e i m p l i c i t g oa l of 1 7 t h e l o d e s t ar a

p p roac h

– w o u l d b e b e t t e r s e rv e d b y c o n s i d e ri n g c a s e -s p e c i f

i c “ re a s o n a

b l e n e s s ” f a c t o rs 1 8 e ar l i e ri

n t he c a l c u l a t i o n. I ns t e a d o f f i r s t d e t e r m

i ni ng t he l o d e s t ar ( m

u l t i p l y i ng an ho ur l

y r a t e by t he 1 9 nu m

be ro f ho ur s w o r k e d ) and

t he n a d j u s t i ng t he l o d e s t art hr o u g h a

m u l t i p l i c a t i ve f a c t o rt o a c c o u ntTh e C o urt ’ s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e t e rm “ l o d e s t ar” s t e m

me d f rom i t s s e n s e t h a t t h e t e rm 5 h ad l o s t i t s meani n g i n t h e s en s e o f

a “ s t ar t h at l eads , ” s i

n ce t h e n um b er gen erat ed b y

t h e f i rst s t ep o f t h e t radi t i o n al l o des t ar appro ach , b y

def i n i t i o n , di d n o t i

n co rpo rat e ca s e-spe ci f

i c f act o rs t h at w o u l d e n a b l e i t t o c o rre c t l

y a p p rox i ma t e a mark e t h o url

y rat e f o r f e e s . S e e id

. at 189-90. 17 1 f o rcase- speci f

i c co n si der at i o n s, t h e Arbo r Hi ll Co ur t sugg est ed t h at a di st r i ct co ur t sh o ul d assess 2 c a s e - s p e c ific c o n s id e r a t io n s a t t h e o u t s e t , fa c t o r in g t h e m in t o it s d e t e r min a t io n

o f ar e a s o n a

b le h o u r ly 3 rat e f

o r t h e a t t o rn e y s ’ w o rk

. S e e i d

. a t 1 8 6 , 1 9 0
. T hi s r e a s o na bl e ho ur l y r a t e c o u l d

t he n be 4 m u l t i p l i e d b y t h e n u m b e r o f h o urs w o rk e d

t o g e n e rat e a

“p re s u m p t i v e l y re a s o n a b l e f e e .” Id. at 190. 5 5 A s Arbo r

Hi ll w a s a s t a t u t o ry fe e s h ift in g c a s e , t h e C o ur t p o in t e d t o w ar d s t h e t w e lv e c a s e - s p e c ific 6 f a c t o r s o u t l i

ne d i n Johns on , 4 8 8 F. 2 d at 7 1 7
- 1 9 , as b ei n g amo n g t h o se r el evant t o a d i st r i ct co u r t ’s 7 d e t e rm

i n a t i o n o f a re a s o n a

b l e mark e t rat e un d e r t h i s re v i s e d a p p roac h

. Se e Arbo r

Hi ll , 522 F
. 3d at 8 190. 9 Arbo r

Hi ll a l s o i

n d i c a te d th a t th e d i s tr i c t c our t i n th a t c a s e h a d

b e e n un d u l y r e s tr i c ti v e i n i ts 1 0 i nt e r p r e t a t i o n o f

t he “f o ru m ru l e , ” t ho u g h i

t u l t i ma t e l y u p he l d t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t ’s d e c i s i o n t o d e ny t he 11 reques t o f pl ai

n t i f f s ’ co un s el t o cal cul at e t h ei r h o url y f ees b as ed o n

t h ei r h o me di s t ri ct , rat h er t h an 1 2 t h e l e s s e x

p an s i v e p re v a i l i

n g rat e s i n t h e d i s t ri c t w h e re t h e l i

t i g a t i o n o c c urre d

. S

e e id

. a t 1 9 0 -9 4 . In 1 3 c l ar i f

y i n g th e f or u m ru l e , th e C our t h e l d

th a t: 1 4 [ A] d i s t r i c t c o ur t may u s e an o u t
- o f

- d i s t r i c t ho ur l

y r a t e

– o rs o me r a t e i

n be t w e e n t he 1 5 o u t
- o f

- d i s t r i c t r a t e s o u g ht and t he r a t e s c har g e d by l o c a l a t t o rne y s

– i n c a l c u l a t i ng t he 1 6 p r e s u m

p t i ve l y r e a s o na bl e f e e i f i t i s c l e ar t ha t a

r e a s o na bl e , p ay i ng c l i e nt w o u l d

have 1 7 p a id

t h o s e h ig h e r r a t e s . W e p r e s u me , h o w e v e r , t h a t a r e a s o n a b le , p aying c lie n

t w o u ld 1 8 in

mo s t c a s e s h ir e c o un s e l .

. . w h o s e r a t e s ar e c o n s is t e n t w it h t h o s e c h ar g e d

lo c a lly. 1 9 T h i s p r e s u m p ti on may b e r e b u tte d

– a l b e i t onl y i nth e un

u s u a l c a s e – i f th e p ar ty 2 0 w i s h i

n g th e d i s tr i c t c our t to u s e a h i g h e r r a te d e mon s tr a te s th a t h i s or h e rr e te n ti on 2 1 o f an

o u t
- o f- d is t r ic t a t t o rn e y w a s r e a s o n a b le un d e rt h e c ir c u ms t an c e s a s t h e y w o u ld 2 2 b e r e c k o n e d b y a c lie n t p aying t h e a t t o rn e y’ s b ill

. 2318 1 Id. a t 1 9 1
. T h e C our t f ur th e r i n d i c a te d th a t “ th e r e a s on a b l e n e s s of a p r e v a i l i n g p ar ty ’ s d e c i s i on

to 2 r e t a i

n o u t
- o f

- d i s t r i c t c o uns e l

i s be s t c o ns i d e r e d

i n s e t t i ng t he ho u r ly r a t e –

r a t he rt han d e c i d i

ng 3 w h e t h e r t o a d

j u s t a p re s u m p t i v e l y re a s o n a b l e f e e ,” s i n c e , inte r ali a , th i s a

p p r oa c h c om p orte d w i th 4 t h e f

o cus o n market rat es un derpi n n i n g Arbo r Hi ll ’ s “p re s u m

p t i v e l y re a s o n a b l e f e e ” a p p roac h

. Id. 5 at 191-92. 6 I n

t h e i n st an t case, t h e di st r i ct co ur t o b serv ed ear l y i n i t s b en ch deci si o n t h at t h e P l ai

n t i f f s’ 7 s ugges t ed f

ee a ward o f 26% r epres en

t ed, i n i t s es t i mat i o n , a m

ul t i pl i er o f 1. 98-2. 24 b ey

o n d wh at 8 c o uns e l

w o u l d h a v e e arne d

ba s e d o n t he i rho ur l y r a t e s . Ap p e l l ant s s u g g e s t t ha t t o t he e xt e nt t he 9 d i s tr i c t c our t’ s i

m pre s s i o nof

th e m u l ti p l i e ra s b e i

n g too l ar g e may

h av e b e e n

r e s p on s i b l e f or i ts 1 0 d i s i

nc l i na t i o n t o ba s e a t t o rne y s ’ fe e s o n a p e r c e nt a g e o f

t he f und , t he c o ur t ’s r e l i anc e u

p o n Arbo r

Hi ll 11 wo rked t o t h ei

r det rimen

t
. In cl ari f

y i n g i t s un derst an di

n g o f t h at cas e, h o wev er, t h e co urt i n di cat ed 12 t h at i f

“ [t h e t radi

t i o n al l o des t ar met h o d] were t o b e appli e d

. . . i t w o u l d b e i rr el ev an t wh ere an 1 3 a t t o rn e y w a s fr o m, [ an d t h e a p p r o p r iat e r a t e ] w o u ld

b e w h a t t h e p r e v a ili

n g r a t e is fo ra t t o rn e ys in

t h is 14 area.” Oral

Dec i s i o n at 26. T h e co urt t h en

s t at ed t h at “ s o me o f

t h e f ees a s c a l c u l a t e d i

n t h e f ee 1 5 s c h e d

u l e s u b m i t t e d b y c l a s s c o un s e l

. . . w o u l d h av e e x c e e d e d [t h e ] t ra d i t i o n a l rat e i n t h e N o rt h e rn 16 Di s t ri ct o f

New Y o rk. I' v e n o t di s co un t ed t h em as a res ul t o f t h at
. ” Id

. at 26

- 27
. I n

o t h erwo r ds, 17 h ad t h e di s t ri ct co urt n o t ref eren ced Arbo r

Hi ll , an d i

n s t ead reli ed o n

i t s un derst an di

n g o f t h e f o rum 1 8 ru l e a s t r a d i

t i o na l l y a p p l i e d , Ap p e l l ant s ’ s u g g e s t e d 2 6 % f e e w o u l d have r e p r e s e nt e d

an e ve n higher 19 m

ul t i pl i er o f t h e l o des t ar. If

A ppel l an t s are co rr ect t h at t h e c o urt ’ s as s es s men t o f t h e m ul t i pl i er 2 0 c o nt r i

bu t e d t o i t s d e c i s i o n no t t o u s e a

p e r c e nt a g e - ba s e d

a p p r o a c h, t he c o ur t ’s r e l i anc e o n Arbo r Hi llWe no t e i n p a s s i ng t ha t t hi s C o ur t ’s r e c e nt d e c i s i o n i n Sim mo ns v . Ne w

Y or k C ity Tr an s it 6 Auth or ity , 575 F
. 3d 170 (2d Ci r. 2009), h as f

urt h er cl ari f

i ed t h e f o rum rul e, em ph as izi n g A rbor Hi ll ’ s l an guage t h at us e o f an o ut -o f -di s t ri ct rat e i s appro pri at e “ o n l y i n t h e un us ual cas e.” See Simmons , 5 7 5 F
. 3 d

a t 1 7 4
. W e r e w e t o r e c o n s id e rt h e d is t r ic t c o ur t ’ s d e c is io n t o p e r mit s o me c l a s s c oun s e l

i n th i s c a s e to u s e a

n out- of

- d i s tr i c t r a te , w e w ou l d

e x am i n e w h e th e rA

p p e l l an ts made n o t o n l

y “ a part i cul ari zed s h o wi

n g . . . t h at t h e s el ect i o n

o f o ut -o f -di s t ri ct co un s el

was p r e d i c a t e d

o n e xp e r i e nc e - ba s e d , o bj e c t i ve f a c t o r s , ” bu t a l s o d e mo ns t r a t e d “t he l i k e l i ho o d t ha t t he us e o f i n -di s t ri ct co un s el

wo ul d [h av e] pr o duce[d] a sub s t an t i al l y i n f eri o r r es ul

t
. ” S e e id

. a t 1 7 6
. G iv e n t h a t t h e fo ru m r

u le w a s n o t r a is e d

a s an is s u e in t h is a p p e a l, an d

t h e fa c t t h a t it w o u ld

lik e ly be w i t hi n t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t ’s d i s c r e t i o n t o aw ar d t he s ame a t t o rne y s ’ fe e by r e e va l u a t i ng t he Gol db erger f

act o rs, we decli

n e t o reman d f

o r co n s i derat i o n

o f t h i s i s s ue al o n e. We d o no t s u g g e s t t ha t c o nc e rns p r e s e nt i n t he c o m mo n f und and s t a t u t o ry f e e - s hi f t i ng 7 c o n t e xt s are i d e n

t i c a l i n e v e ry re s p e c t , compare Goldber ger , 2 0 9 F
. 3 d

a t 5 3 ( n o t in g t h a t in c om m on f un d c on te xt, p l a i n ti f f s h av e l i ttl e i n c e n ti v e to n e g oti a te s iz e of

a ttor n e y s ’ f

e e s b e c a u s e of 19 1 c an

n o t h av e h

ur t t h e m. 6 2 I n any

e ve nt , w e f

i nd no e rr o ri

n t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t ’s r e l i anc e o n Ar b o r H i ll i n t hi s c a s e . At 3 b o t t o m , A

ppel l an t s ’ argumen

t s regardi n g Arbo r Hi ll ar e f

o und e d u p o n t he a s s u m

p t i o n t ha t t he 4 l o d e s t ar me t h o d

a p p l i e d i n t h e c o m mo n f un d c o n t e xt i s d i s t i

n c t f rom t h a t e m p l o ye d i n t h e s t a t u t o ry 5 f e e - s h i f ti n g c on te xt. W h i l e i t i s tr u e s om e d i s tr i c t c our ts i

n th i s C i r c u i t h av e e x p r e s s e d un c e r ta i n ty 6 a s t o t h e r e le v an c e o f Arbo r Hi ll i n c o m mo n f un d c a s e s , s ee In re R amp Cor p. Sec. Lit ig. , No
. 05 7 C i v . 6 5 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 WL 5 8 9 3 8 , a t * 2 n .3 ( S
. D
. N
. Y
. Ja n. 3 , 2 0 0 8 ) ; In re AOL T ime W ar ner E R ISA 8 Liti

g. , No
. 02 Cv
. 88 53 , 20 07 WL 314 51 11 , at *1 n . 3 ( S
. D. N. Y. Oct
. 26 , 20 07 ) , t h i s Co ur t ’s case 9 l awd o e s n o t s u g g e s t t h a t t h e re are t wo d i f f er ent l o d e s t ar me t h o d s , s ee, e.g. , In re Agent Or ange 10 P roducts Liti

g. , 8 1 8 F
. 2 d

2 2 6 , 2 3 2 ( 2 d

C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ [ W ]e h av e ad op te d a l od e s tarf

or m u l a f or 1 1 c a lc u la t in g f

e e s i n e qu i t a bl e f und and s t a t u t o ry f e e c o nt e xt s . ” )

. T o t he c o nt r ary , i n d i s c u s s i ng t he 1 2 l od e s tarme th od , ourc om mon f un d an d s ta tu tor y f e e s h i f ti n g c a s e s h av e e m

p l oye d th e s ame d e f

i n i ti on 13 an d r ef

er en ced t h e same fo u nd at i o n al cases. Se e, e.g. Arbo r

Hi ll , 522 F
. 3d at 186 (ci t i n g Lindy 7t h e ir

minima l pro r

ata g a i n f rom an y re d u c t i o n i n f e e s ), with Arbo r

Hi ll , 5 2 2 F. 3 d

a t 1 8 4 ( no t i

ng th a t i n th e f e e - s h i f ti n g c on te xt, p l a i n ti f f s h av e l i ttl e i n c e n ti v e to n e g oti a te a

mar k e t- b a s e d

r a te s t ruct ure wi

t h at t o rn ey s b eca

us e f ees are pai d en

t i rel y b y def en dan t s ), b ut s i m pl y t h at t h e l o des t ar a p p r o a c h i s c o m

mo n t o bo t h. 20 1 B r o s . B u i l d er

, Inc. v. A m. R adiator &

Standard Sanitar

y C or p. , 4 8 7 F
. 2 d 1 6 1 ( 3 d C i

r . 1 9 7 3 ) as 2 f o und a t i o nal

c a se f o rl o d e st ara

p p r o a c h i n st a t u t o ry

f e e c a se ) ; Goldber

ger , 2 0 9 F
. 3 d a t 4 8 ( c i

t i ng 3 Li n d

yBro s . i n co m mo n f und c a se ) ; Gr inn e ll I

, 495 F
. 2d at 470-74 ( ci

t i n g Li n d yBro s . i n j u s t i f y i ng 4 a d o p t i o n o f l o d e s t ar a p p roac h i n c o m m o nf u n d ca s e ). It i s t h eref

o re n o t s urpr i s i

n g t h at s ev eral 5 d i s tr i c t c our ts w i

th i n th i s C i r c u i t h av e r e f

e rr e d to A rb o r H ill ’s “p resum

pt i v el y reas o n ab l e f

ee” 6 app r o ach

i n co m mo n f un d cases. See Silber

blatt v. Morgan Stanley , 524 F
. Supp. 2d 425, 434 7 (S

. D.N. Y. 2007) (r ef eren ci n g A rb o r H i l l i n us e of

l od e s tara s c r os s - c h e c k

on r e a s on a b l e n e s s of 8 percen

t age a ward) ; I n re Ass icur

az ioni Gener

ali S. p. A

. Holocaus t I

ns . Liti g. , No s . 97 Ci

v . 2262, 98 9 C i v. 9 1 8 6 , 0 0 C i

v. 9 4 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 WL 7 6 2 4 3 8 , a t * 2 ( S
. D
. N
. Y
. M ar . 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( r e l y i ng u p o n Arbo r

Hi ll 1 0 t o e xp l a i

n ap p l i c a t i o n o f

l o d e st arme t ho d ) ; A OL Time W ar ner , 2 0 0 7 W L 3 1 4 5 1 1 1 , a t * 1 n .3 1 1 ( co n cu rr i

n g wit h co n cl u si o n s o f A rb o r H

ill

- b a s e d c r o s s - c h e c k

o f p e r c e n

t a g e aw ar d )

. F r o m a 12 mat h em

at i cal perspe ct i v e, o f co urse, i t makes l i t t l e di f f eren ce wh et h er a co urt , f

o l l o wi n g Arbo r Hi ll , 13 co n s i ders cas e-spe ci f i c f act o rs t o es t i

mat e a reas o n ab l e rat e f

o r an at t o rn ey ’ s s erv i ces , wh i ch i s t h en 1 4 m

u l t i p l i e d by t he nu m be ro f ho ur s w o r k e d , o rw he t he rt he c o ur t t ak e s t he t r a d i t i o na l a p p r o a c h and 1 5 c o n s id e r s t h e s e s ame fa c t o r s in c a lc u lat ing a mu lt ip li e rt o t h e lo d e s t ar . T h e b e n e fi t o f Arbo r

Hi ll ’s 1 6 me th od ol og y i s th a t b y c on s i d e r i n g c a s e - s p e c i f

i c f a c tor s a t th e ou ts e t, th e d i s tr i c t c our t’ s f oc u s on 1 7 m

i m i c k i n g a mark e t i s ma i

n t a i n e d

. Se e Arbo r

Hi ll , 522 F
. 3d at 192. 1 8 To t h e e xt e n t t h a t t h e s p e c i f

i c f a c t o rs c o n s i d e re d

b y c o urt s i n t h e c o m mo n f un d an d s t a t u t o ry21 1 f e e -s h i f t i n g c o n t e xt s are s o me w h a t d i f

f e re n t , com pa re W al

- M art , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 , with Johns on , 488 2 F. 2 d a t 7 1 7
- 1 9 , w e no t e t ha t t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t ’s r e l i anc e o n Arbo r Hi ll in t h is c a s e w a s lim

it e d

. W h ile 3 t h e co urt ref

eren ced Johns on in it s init ia l d is c u s s io n o f Arbo r Hi ll , i t l a t e rc l ar i f

i e d t ha t i t w a s r e l y i ng 4 o n t he l a t t e r f

o r i t s “p r e s u m

p t i ve r e a s o na

bl e f e e ” a p p r o a c h and i

t s mo r e f l e xi bl e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t he 5 f o rum rul e. An d i

n co n s i deri

n g cas e-spe ci f

i c f act o rs, t h e di s t ri ct co urt cl earl y f o l l o wed Goldber

ger , 6 addres s i

n g eac h o f t h e s i x f act o rs o ut l i

n ed i n t h at cas e. T h e o n e Johns on f act o r sepa rat el y co n s i dered 7 b y t h e co u rt , “ t h e precl

us i o n o f em pl o y men t b y t h e at t o rn ey

due t o acc ept an ce o f

t h e ca s e,” Oral 8 D e c i s i o n a t 1 5 , w e i g he d i n f avo ro f a hi g he rf e e aw ar d , and

i t s c o ns i d e r a t i o n d i d

no t p r e j u d i c e t he 9 A ppel l an t s . W e are t h eref

o re u n co n

v i n ced t h e co urt “ mo di f

i ed t h e Gol db erger f

a c t o r s ” i n any 10 meani

n gf ul way b y ref eren ci n g Arbo r Hi ll , and ac co r d i

n g l y , we f i n d n o er r o ri

n t h e d i st r i ct co u r t ’s 11 rel i an ce o n

t h at cas e. 12 I I I . T

he Dis tric t Cour

t’ s Application of t

he G o ld b e rg e r Fact

ors 1 3 A

p p e l l an t s ’ f i n a l arg u me n

t s c o n c e rn t h e d i s t ri c t c o urt ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c a s e -s p e c i f

i c f a c t o rs 1 4 e l u c i d a t e d i n Gol db erger f

or d e te r m i n i n g th e re a s on a

b l e n e s s of

a c om mon f un d f e e . A p p e l l an ts 1 5 c o n

t e n d t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o c o m m i t t i n g e rrors i

n re l a t i o n t o e a c h

o f t h e s e f a c t o rs , t h e d i s t ri c t c o u rt 16 “ i n v en t ed” a n addi t i o n al f act o r, h o l d i ng t h e at t o rn ey s ’ ex peri en ce i n l i t i gat i n g s t ri p s earch cas es 1 7 a g a i

n s t t h e m , w h e n

i n f a c t t h e i r e x p e ri e n c e s h o u l d

h av e w e i g h e d

i n f av o r of a h i g h e r f e e . 18 T h e Gol db erger f act o rs are appli cab l e t o t h e co urt ’ s reas o n ab l en es s det erm i n at i o n wh et h er 1 9 a p e rc e n t a g e -of -f un d o r l o d e s t ar a

p p roac h i s u s e d , s ee W

al- Mar t, 3 9 6 F
. 3 d a t 1 2 1 ( “ I rr e s p e c ti v e of 20 wh i ch met h o d i s us ed, t h e ‘ Gol db erger f a c tor s ’ u l ti ma te l y d e te r m i n e th e r e a s on a

b l e n e s s of a c om mon 2 1 f un d f e e .” ), an d i

n t h e l a t t e r c o n

t e xt , i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r a m

u l t i p l i e r s h o u l d b e a

p p l i e d t o t h e l o d e s t ar.22 1 (Un der t h e Arbo r

Hi ll a p p roac h , t h e y

w o u l d b e f a c t o re d i n t o t h e a p p ropri a t e h o url

y r at e b e f o re 2 cal cul at i

n g t h e pres um

pt i v el y reas o n ab l e f

ee.) T h e Gol db erger fa c t o r s in c lu d e : ( 1 ) c o un s e l’ s t ime 3 an d l a

b or ; ( 2 ) th e l i

ti g a ti on ’ s ma g n i

tu d e an d c om p l e x i ty ; ( 3 ) th e r i s k

of th e l i ti g a ti on ; ( 4 ) th e qu a l i

ty 4 o f repr es en t at i o n ; (5) t h e reques t ed f ee i n rel at i o n t o t h e s et t l em

en t ; a nd (6) pub l i c po l i cy 5 c o ns i d e r a t i o ns . 2 0 9 F. 3 d a t 5 0
. I m p o r t ant l y , w e d e f e rt o t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t ’s d e t e r m i na t i o ns r e g ar d i

ng 6 t h e s e f

a c t o rs . S e e id

. a t 4 7 -4 8
. Cf

. Merc k-M

ecc o , 5 0 4 F. 3 d

a t 2 4 9 ( “T he D i s t r i c t C o ur t a p p l i e d t he 7 G o ld

b e r g er t e s t a nd made s peci f i c an d det ai l ed f

i n di n gs f ro m t h e reco rd, as well

as f ro m i t s o wn 8 f ami l i ar i t y wit h t h e c ase . . . . A cc o r d i n g l y , we f i n d n o r ea so n

t o d i st ur b t h e D i st r i ct Co u r t ’s 9 [d e t e rm

i n a t i o n ].” ). 1 0 We a d dr e s s f i r s t Ap p e l l ant s ’ c o nt e nt i o n t ha t t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t i m p r o p e r l y c o unt e d t he 1 1 a t t o r ne y s ’ e xp e r i e nc e i n l i t i g a t i ng s t r i p s e ar c h c a s e s a g a i

ns t t he m w he n t ha t f

a c t o rs ho u l d

have 1 2 c oun

te d , i f a t a l l , i n f av orof th e h i g h e rp r op os e d

f e e aw ard. A l t h o ugha ttor n e y e x p e r i e n c e i s n ot 13 ex

pl i ci t l y en umerat ed am

o n g t h e Gol db erger f

a c tor s , i t i s c l e arth a t e x

p e r i e n c e m

i g h t b e r e l e v an

t to 1 4 s e v e r a l

of th e m , i n c l u d i n g c on s i d e r a ti on

of th e ti me an d e f f ort e x p e n d e d b y c oun s e l , th e c om

p l e x i ty 1 5 o f

t he l i t i g a t i o n, and

qu a l i t y o f t he r e p r e s e nt a t i o n. I n Gol db erger i t s el f , t h i s Co urt uph el d t h e di s t ri ct 1 6 c o ur t ’s d e c i s i o n t o aw ar d a l o d e s t ar f e e w i t h no m u l t i p l i e r i n p ar t ba s e d

u p o n i t s o bs e r va t i o n t ha t t he 1 7 a t t o rn e ys h a d

b e e n “ h e lp e d e n o r mo u s ly” b y t h e “ s p a d e w o r k ” p e r fo r me d b y fe d e r a l a

u t h o r it ie s in 18 act i o n s agai

n s t t h e s am

e def en dan t s an d b eca

us e t h e l egal

i s s ues prese n

t ed we re n o t n o v el

. 209 F
. 3d 19 at 54, 56. 2 0 H e r e , th e a dv an c e s p a d e w or k th a t a s s i s te d

c oun s e l i n th e i rs u i t a g a i n s t th e C oun

ty of 21 Sch en ect ady

di d n o t i n v o l v e t h e prev i o us un eart h i

n g o f f act s regardi

n g t h e s peci f

i c def en dan t s , b ut23 1 rat h e r t h e p ri o r m

i n i n g o f re l e v an t c a s e l awan d

s h o ri n g u p o f l e g a l arg u me n

t s t h a t t h e d i s t ri c t c o u rt 2 r e a s o na

bly c o nc l

u d e d t o have o c c urr e d

d ur i ng t he c o ur s e o f

t w o p r i o ra c t i o ns a l l e g i ng 3 un co n s t i

t ut i o n al s t ri p s earch po l i ci es . T h e di s t ri ct co urt ’ s deci s i o n t o co n s i der t h e b en ef

i t af f o rded 4 t o co un s el b y t h i s ex peri en ce – rel ev an

t t o s ev eral

o f t h e Gol db erger f

act o rs – do es n o t co n s t i

t ut e an 5 err o r o f l aw. No r do es A ppel l an t s ’ o b s erv at i o n t h at ex

peri en ce m

i gh t i n s o me ca s es en ab l e co un s el 6 t o dem an d a h i gh erf ee make t h e di st r i ct co ur t ’s co n cl usi o n t h at i

t cut t h e o pp o si

t e way i n t h i s case 7 c l e ar l

y e rr on e ou s . I n d e e d , our p r i or c a s e l awi n d i c a te s th a t w h e th e ra

g i v e n f a c torc u ts i

n f av orof 8 o r agai

n s t t h e us e o f

a m ul t i pli er depen ds h eav i l

y o n t h e f act s o f a ca s e. T h e l ev el

o f ri s k as s o ci at ed 9 w i t h l i t i g a t i o n, f o re xam p l e , w hi c h i s “p e rha

p s t he f o r e mo s t f a c t o r ” t o be c o ns i d e r e d

i n a s s e s s i ng t he 10 pro pri et y o f a m

ul t i pl i er, an d t y

pi call y wei gh s i n i t s f av o r, can wei gh agai n s t t h e us e o f

a m ul t i pl i er 1 1 w h e n

t h e ma g n i

t u d e o f ri s k s t e m s o n l

y f rom a l aw s u i t ’ s d u b i o u s l e g a l

me ri t
. S e e id

. at 54 (i n t ern al 1 2 qu o t a t i o n

mark s o m

i t t e d ). 13 W e s i

m i l arl y s ee n o cl ear err o r i

n t h e di s t ri ct co urt ’ s remai n i n g det erm

i n at i o n s as t o t he 14 Gol db erger f

a c t o rs . A p p e l l an t s f i n d f a u l t w i t h t h e c o urt ’ s d e t e rm

i n a t i o n re g ard i

n g t h e f i rs t f a c t o r, 1 5 t ha t c o uns e l

w e r e a d e qu a t e l

y c o m p e ns a t e d fo r t he i

rt i me and e f f o r t u s i ng t he i ro r d i nary r a t e s , and 16 s ugges t t h at h ere at t o rn ey ex peri en ce s h o ul d h av e we i gh ed i n f av o r o f s o me m ul t i pl i er. T h ey

f urt h er 1 7 c r i

t i c iz e t he c o ur t ’s f

i nd i ng r e g ar d i

ng t he f o ur t h f a c t o r , qu a l i

t y o f r e p r e s e nt a t i o n, and

ur g e t ha t t he 18 f ac t t h at cl ass co un sel

“ di d a f i n e j o b an d o b t ai

n ed a g o o d set t l emen

t , ” Or al Deci si o n at 14 , al so 1 9 s h ou l d h av e c oun te d i n f av or of a h i g h e r aw ar d

. W e h av e a l r e a dy a d dr e s s e d

th e e x p e r i e n c e ar g u me n

t, 2 0 an d

f or s i m i l arr e a s on s f

i n d A p p e l l an ts ’ c on te n ti on r e g ar d i n g th e i rp e r f orman c e to b e i

n s u f f i c i e n t to 2 1 s ho wc l e are rr o r . E ve n i n Goldber ger , wh ere co un s el

were prai s ed b y

t h e di s t ri ct co urt as “ t h e cream24 1 o f t he p r o f e s s i o n” w ho s e “g e ni

u s and d e d i c a t i o n w e r e vi

t a l i n r e s o l vi ng t he c o mp le x i

t i e s o f t he 2 lit ig a t io n , ” t h is C o ur t u p h e ld a fe e aw ar d

w it h n o mu lt ip lie r . 2 0 9 F
. 3 d

a t 5 5
- 5 6
. B o t h

h e r e , an d in 3 th a t c a s e , “ w h i l e th e d i s tr i c t c our t decl i n ed to aw ar d f or ma l m u l ti p l i e r s f or. . . qu a l i

ty of 4 r e p r e s e n

t a t io n , t h e c o ur t d id c o n s id e rt h o s e fa c t o r s b y a llo w in g c o un s e l t o r e c o v e rg e n e r o u s h o u r ly 5 f ees . ” Id

. at 56. “ [T ]h e ques t i o n b ef o re us i s n o t wh et h er we wo ul d h av e aw arded a di f f eren t f ee, 6 b ut rat h er wh et h er t h e di s t ri ct co urt ab us ed i t s di s cret i o n

i n awa rdi n g t h i s f ee.” In re N

or tel Ne tw

or ks 7 Cor

p. Sec. Lit ig. , 5 3 9 F .3 d

1 2 9 , 1 3 4 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). 8 N or

ar e w e c on

v i n c e d th a t Gol db erger f

act o r s t wo an d t h

r ee, t h e co m

pl ex i t y an d r i sk 9 a sso c i a t e d

w i t h t h e l i t i g a t i o n , c o m

p e l a h i g h e r f e e aw ard t h an t h a t g ran t e d b y t h e c o urt b e l o w . In 10 respo n s e t o t h e di s t ri ct co urt ’ s co n cl us i o n t h at t h e cas e was “ an

o rdi n ary ci v i l ri gh t s cas e i n wh i ch 11 l i ab i l i

t y appea r[ ed] r eas o n ab l

y cert ai n , ” Oral Dec i s i o n

at 13, A ppel l an t s co n t en d t h at t h e ca s e wa s “ f

ar 1 2 f r o m s i m p l e , ” Ap p e l l ant s ’ B r . a t 2 4 , t h a t t h is C i r c u i t ’s ho l d i ng i n Shain r e g ar d i

ng t he 1 3 un c o n s t i

t u t i o n a l i t y o f m i s d e me an o r s t ri

p s e arc h e s w a s “ f

ar f rom s t a b l e ” a t t h e t i

me o f t h e i r s u i t , Id. 14 at 25 (quo t i

n g M cB ean v. Cit

y of New Y ork, 233 F
. R.D. 377, 387 (S

. D.N. Y. 2007) ), an d t h at t h ey 1 5 f a c e d s u bs t ant i a l li t i g a t i o n r i s k

d u e t o t he ava i l a

bi l i t y o f an e xha

u s t i o n o f r e me d i e s d e f

e ns e und e rt he 16 Pr i s o n

L i t i gat i o n Re f o rm A ct (“ PLR

A ”) an d b eca

us e dam ages were di f

f i cul t t o pro v e i

n t h ei r cas e. 1 7 W

h i l e a p p e l l an ts ar e c orr e c t th a t Shain was deci ded b y a di v i ded pan el , we c an

n o t s ay t h at t h e di s t ri ct 1 8 c o ur t ’ s s e n s e o f t h e s t r e n g t h o f A p p e lla n t s ’ c a s e w a s c le ar ly e rr o n e o u s . A t t h e t ime t h e in s t an

t s u it 1 9 w a s b roug h

t , s ee G oldber

ger , 20 9 F. 3dat 55 ( n o t i

n g t h at “ [ i ] t i s wel l

- est ab l i sh ed t h at l i t i gat i o n r i sk 2 0 m

u s t b e me a s ur e d

a s of w h e n th e c a s e i s f

i l e d ” ) , a p ol i c y of c on d u c ti n g b l an k e t s tr i p s e ar c h e s of 2 1 m

i s d e me an o r d e t a i

n e e s w a s c l e arl

y un c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

. Se e Sh ain , 273 F
. 3d at 62-66. Set t l em en t s h ad25 1 a l r e a dy be e n r e a c he d

i n t w o o t he rc l a s s a c t i o ns i nvo l vin g bl ank e t s t r i

p s e ar c h p o l i c i e s , i

nc l u d i ng 2 Kahle r , i

n wh i ch A ppel l an t s ’ co un s el

t h em s el v es were i

n v o l v ed, an d t h e i s s ue o f

l i ab i l i t y h ad b een 3 r e s o l

v e d i n f av o r o f p l a i

n ti f f s i n a t h i rd

. See D odge v. County of Or ange , 282 F
. Supp. 2d 41 4 (S

. D.N. Y. 2003) (f i n di n g def en dan t s l i ab l e); St i

pul at i o n an d Order o f

Set t l em en t an d Di s co n

t i n uan ce, 5 Sp in ner v. Cit

y of New Y ork, No
. 1: 01

- cv - 27 15 ( E
. D. N. Y. Jun e 9, 20 04 ) ; Mo t i o n t o Cer t i f y Cl ass 6 an d f

o r Pr e l i m i n ary A p p rov a l o f

C l a s s A c t i o n

Se t t l e me n

t , K ah le r v . R e nss e lae r

C ou nty , N o . 1 : 0 3

- c v7 01324 (N. D.N. Y. Mar. 18, 2004). M o reo v er, A ppel l an t s ’ co m pl ai n t n o t ed t h at t h e Sch en ect ady 8 P o l i c e D e p ar t me nt ’s s t r i p s e ar c h p o l i c y , w hi c h t he y a l l e g e d w a s c lo s e ly

r e l a t e d t o t ha t o f

t he 9 d e f

e nd ant c o unt y , ha d be e n f

o und unc o ns t i t u t i o na l i n Gonz alez

v. City of Schene ctady , 141 F
. Supp. 1 0 2 d

3 0 4 (N .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 1 ). Co m pl

. at ¶ 33. W h i l e A ppel l an t s n o t e t h at t h e A

ppel l ees di s t i

n gui s h ed 1 1 t h e “ c h an g e o u t s ” p ur s u an t t o t h e ir p o lic y fr o m fo r

b id d e n s t r ip s e ar c h e s , an d

p o in t t o a p ur p o r t e d ly 1 2 s i m i l arc a s e i n w hi c h a l aw s u i t w a s d i s m

i s s e d , t ha t c a s e w a s d e c i d e d ne ar l y a ye ar a f t e rt he y br o u g ht 1 3 s u i

t
. SeeJ u d g me n t, Steinber

g v. County of

R ockland, N o . 0 4 C i

v . 4 8 8 9 (S .D .N .Y . M ay

2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). 14 1 5 Ap p e l l ant s ’ a s s e r t i o ns t ha t t he d e f e nd ant s i n t hi s c a s e p o s s e s s e d

p o t e nt i a l l y va l i d d e f e ns e s and 16 t h at dam

ages were di f

f i cul t t o pro v e are s i

m i l arl y i n s uf f i ci en t t o dem o n s t rat e cl ear err o r i

n t h e di s t ri ct 17 co urt ’ s f

i n di n gs wi t h respe ct t o l i

t i gat i o n ri s k. Co un s el

m us t do m o re t h an “p o i n t t o . . . gen eral 1 8 hurdl es

– s u c h a s th e d e f e n s e s av a i l a

b l e to d e f e n d an ts

– ” an d “ ar g u e th a t b e c a u s e th e i r f ee w as 1 9 e n

t ir e ly c o n t in g e n t o n t h e ira b ilit y t o o v e r c o me s u c h

h ur d le s , t h e y must , a s a

ma t t e r o f law , be 20 co m

pen s at ed b y

a f ee e n h an cem en t
. ” Goldber

ger , 2 0 9 F. 3 d a t 5 4 . W h i l e t h e d i s t ri c t c o u rt 2 1 a c kno w l e d g e d

t ha t an aw ar d

o f d ama g e s w a s unc e r t a i

n i n t he c a s e , i

t c o rr e c t l y no t e d t ha t “[ t ] he26 1 dam ages r i sk i s o f l i t t l e c o ns e qu en ce t o an

at t o rn ey f o ra pr ev ai l i

n g p l ai n t i f f i n a ci v i l r i ght s case 2 wh o ’ s en

t i t l ed t o o b t ai

n at t o rn ey s ’ f

ees pursuan

t t o 14 [U. S. C. §] 1988. ” Oral Dec i s i o n at 13-14. 3 E v en

i f o n l y n o m i n al mo n et ary dam

ages h ad b een reco v ered, A ppel l an t s ’ at t o rn ey s s t o o d t o reco v er 4 a f ee b as ed o n t h ei

r s ucce s s i n o b t ai n i n g i n j un ct i v e reli ef

. “ [W ]h ere b o t h

m o n et ary an d equi t ab l e rel i ef 5 have be e n p ur s u e d , t he s iz e o f t he mo ne t ary

r e c o ve r y is no t ne c e s s ar i l y t he p r o p e rme a s ur e o f

t he 6 p l a i

n t i f f ’ s s u c c e s s . . . . ‘ [A ] p l a i

n t i f f w h o f a i l e d t o re c o v e r d ama g e s b u t o b t a i n e d i n j un c t i v e re l i e f

. . 7
. may reco v er a f

ee awa rd b as ed o n

al l h o urs reas o n ab l

y ex pen ded i f t h e rel i ef o b t ai n ed j us t i f i ed t h at 8 ex pen di t ure o f at t o rn ey t i me.’” LeB lanc-Sternbe r

g v. Fletc her , 143 F
. 3d 748, 758 (2d Ci r. 1998) 9 (quo t i

n g Hen sley v. E ckerha rt , 4 6 1 U .S. 4 2 4 , 4 3 5 n . 1 1 (1 9 8 3 )). Cf

. McCar dle v. Haddad , 131 F
. 3d 1 0 4 3 , 5 4 ( 2 d

C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( “ [ W ] e h av e h e l d t h at t h e d e n i a l of a ttorn e y s ’ f

e e s w a s n ot an

a b u s e of 11 di s cret i o n

wh ere t h e pl ai

n t i f f reco v ered o nl y no m i na l

dam ages an d recei

v ed n o o t h er meani

n gf ul 1 2 re l i e f

.” ). 1 3 Fi

na l l y , w e r e j e c t Ap p e l l ant s ’ a s s e r t i o ns t ha t t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t e rr e d i n i t s f i nd i ng s a s t o t he 1 4 f i f t h and s i xt h Goldber

ger f a c t o r s , t he r e a s o na

bl e ne s s o f

t he f e e i n r e la t i o n t o t he s iz e o f t he 1 5 s e t t l e me n

t an d p u b l i c p o l i c y c o n s i d e rat i o n s re l e v an t t o f e e aw ard s . A

p p e l l an t s ’ arg u me n

t w i t h re g ard 1 6 to th e f

or me re s s e n

ti a l l y r e p e a ts th e i

r“b e n c h mar k ” a s s e r ti on

th at th e f e e aw ar d i n th i s c a s e w a s too 1 7 f arf r om th e p e r c e n

ta g e - of

- f un d a wa rds i n s i

m i l arc a s e s , a d d i

n g th a t th e d i s tr i c t c our t e rr e d i n i ts 1 8 a s s e s s me nt t ha t an aw ar d e qu i va l e nt t o 1 3 % w a s “sq u ar e l y w i t hi n t he r ang e ” o f

t y p i c a l aw ar d s and 19 t h at A

ppel l an t s ’ s ugges t ed l o des t ar m

ul t i pl i er was at t h e l o w en d o f m ul t i pl i ers t h at h av e o f

t en b een 2 0 aw ar d e d

. W

h i l e A p p e l l an ts c i te to N or te l as dem

o n s t rat i n g t h i s Co urt ’ s co n cern

o v er a di s t ri ct 21 co urt ’ s f

ai l ure t o co n s i der awards i

n s i m i l ar cas es , t h at cas e up he ld a f e e aw ar d d e s p i

te i ts d i s p ar i ty27 1 f rom o t h e r aw ard s . See 539 F
. 3d at 134. Our cas e l aw makes cl ear b o t h t h at n o presum pt i o n appl i es 2 t o t h e p e rc e n

t a g e o f a c o m mo n f un d t h a t s h o u l d b e aw ard e d t o p l a i n t i f f s ’ c o un s e l , an d t h a t an

aw ard 3 o f n o l o d e s t ar m

u l t i p l i e r a t a l l i s w i

t h i n t h e d i s t ri c t c o urt ’ s d i s c re t i o n . See G oldber ger , 209 F
. 3d at 4 5 1

- 5 7
. A

fe e aw a r d d o e s n o t “ c o n s t it u t e an a

b u s e o f d is c r e t io n

s imp ly be c a

u s e it d e v iat e s mat e r ia lly 5 f ro m t h e [percen

t age] us ual l

y awa rded i n s i m i l ar cas es . In s t ead, we adh ere t o o ur pr i o r pr act i ce t h at 6 a f ee awa rd s h o ul d b e b as ed o n s crut i n y o f t h e un i que ci

rcum s t an ces o f eac h cas e, a nd a ‘j eal o us 7 regard t o t h e ri gh

t s o f t h o s e wh o are i

n t eres t ed i n t h e f un d. ’ ” Id. at 53 (quo t i

n g G r in n e l I

I , 495 F
. 2d 8 at 469). E v en i f a mo re t h o ro ugh rev i ew b y t h e di s t ri ct co urt o f at t o rn ey s ’ f ee a wards i n s t ri p-sea rch 9 c om

m on f un d c a s e s m i g h t h av e i n d i c a te d th a t th e 1 3 % f

e e aw ar d e d

i n th i s c a s e w a s s l i g h

tl y b e l ow 1 0 t h e l o w e r e n d

o f t h e s p e c t rum , s e e N

ils e n v . Y or k C ou nty , 400 F
. Supp. 2d 266, 281, 287-289 ( D. 11 M e. 2005) (o b s erv i n g a percen

t age-o f -f un d ran ge o f

16-33% i n s t ri p s earch cas es ), we c o n cl

ude t h at 1 2 th e d i s tr i c t c our t’ s aw ar d w a s w i th i n i ts d i s c r e ti on

g i v e n th e c on s i d e r a ti on s ou tl i n e d i n i ts d i s c u s s i on 13 o f

t h e Gol db erger f

a c t o rs . See N

or tel , 539 F
. 3d at 134. 1 4 W e ar e m i n d f u l th a t p u b l i c p ol i c y

s u p p or ts th e p ur s u i

t of me r i tor i ou s c l a s s a c ti on

l i ti g a ti on 1 5 t o v i n d i ca t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ri g h t s . A p p e l l an t s s u g g e s t t h a t s o me re w ard b e y o n d t h e o rd i n ary 1 6 r e mun e r a t io n

fo rle g a l s e r v ic e s is n e e d e d t o e n s ur e t h a t s u c h s u it s ar e b r o u g h

t b y c o mp e t e n

t c o u n s e l. 17 “ On

t h e o t h er si de o f t h e l edger, h o wev er, i s o ur l o n gs t an di n g co n cern

f o r mo derat i o n . ” Goldber

ger , 1 8 2 0 9 F. 3 d

a t 5 7
. C i

vi l r i g ht s c a s e s may

o r may no t r a i s e t h e s ame d ang e ro f “r o u t i ne 19 o v er co m

pen sat i o n ” f

o rr i sk t h at h as t r o ub l ed t h i s co ur t i n t h e co n t ext o f “ mega- f

un d” cl ass act i o n s, 2 0 b u t i

t i s b e c a u s e o f t h e c a s e -s p e c i f

i c n a t ure o f

t h e f e e aw ard i n qu i ry t h a t w e h av e b e e n l o a t h t o d i s t u rb 21 t h e det erm

i n at i o n s o f di s t ri ct co urt s i

n t h i s area. “ W

h en t h e ex erci s e o f

. . . di s cret i o n

i s s uppo rt ed28 1 b y a d e qu a te f

i n d i n g s an d i s c on s i s te n

t w i th ourp r e f e r e n c e f ormod e r a ti on , a s i

t w a s h e r e , w e w i l l

n ot 2 s ub s t i

t ut e o ur o wn

predi l ect i o n s f

o r t h e j udgmen

t o f t h e di s t ri ct co urt
. ” Id. 3 CO NC L USI ON 4 F o rt h e f

o r ego i n g r easo n s, t h e o r dero f

t h e Di st r i ct Co ur t app eal ed f r o m i s AFF IRM ED
.