Document: 461 U.S. 424 103 S.Ct. 1933 76 L.Ed.2d 40 C. Duane HENSLEY et al., Petitionersv.Thomas ECKERHART al. No. 81-1244. Argued Nov. 3, 1982. Decided May 16, 1983. Syllabus Respondents, on behalf of all persons involuntarily confined in the forensic unit a Missouri state hospital, brought suit Federal District Court against petitioner hospital officials, challenging constitutionality treatment and conditions at hospital. The Court, after trial, found constitutional violations five six general areas treatment. Subsequently, respondents filed request for attorney's fees under Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which provides that federal civil rights actions "the court, its discretion, may allow prevailing party, other than United States, reasonable fee as part costs." After determining were parties 1988 even though they had not succeeded every claim, refused to eliminate from award hours spent by respondents' attorneys unsuccessful claims, finding significant extent relief clearly justified fee. Appeals affirmed. Held: did properly consider relationship between success amount award. plaintiff's is crucial factor proper an 1988. Where plaintiff failed prevail claim unrelated successful should be excluded considering lawsuit consists related who has won substantial have his reduced simply because district court adopt each contention raised. But where achieved only limited success, relation results obtained. Pp. 429-440. 664 F.2d 294 (8th Cir., 1981), vacated remanded. Michael L. Boicourt, Jefferson City, Mo., petitioners. Stanley J. Eichner, Ann D. Lever, Levers, St. Louis, respondent. [Amicus Curiae Information pages 425-426 intentionally omitted] Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 Title issue this case whether partially recover legal services claims. 2 * A. 3 Respondents Forensic Unit Fulton State Hospital Fulton, Missouri. two residential buildings housing patients are dangerous themselves or others. Maximum-security housed Marion O. Biggs Building Criminally Insane. rest reside less restrictive Rehabilitation Unit. 4 In 1972 three-count complaint Western petitioners, officials members Mental Health Commission. Count I challenged II placement without procedural due process. III sought compensation performed institution-maintaining labor. 5 was resolved consent decree December 1973. largely mooted August 1974 when petitioners began compensating labor pursuant Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 201 seq. April 1975 voluntarily dismissed new two-count complaint. again damages, based Thirteenth Amendment, value past patient July 1976 back-pay count. Finally, 1977 amended one-count specifying allegedly violated their right 6 1979, following three-week held committed minimally adequate 475 F.Supp. 908, 915 (WD Mo.1979). then areas: physical environment; individual plans; least visitation, telephone, mail privileges; seclusion restraint.1 With respect staffing, sixth area, Unit's staffing levels, increased during litigation, adequate. F.Supp., 919-920. Petitioners appeal Court's decision merits. B 7 February 1980 period January through end litigation. Their four claimed 2,985 worked payment rates varying $40 $65 per hour. This amounted approximately $150,000. also requested enhanced thirty fifty percent, total somewhere $195,000 $225,000. opposed numerous grounds, including inclusion pursuit 8 first determined claim. It claims: 9 "[Petitioners'] suggested method calculating strictly mathematical approach comparing number issues with those actually prevailed upon. Under no consideration given relative importance various issues, interrelation difficulty identifying party issues." 75-CV-87-C, Jan. 23, Record 220. 10 Finding "have obtained import," 231, awarded $133,332.25. differed respects. First, one attorney percent account inexperience failure keep contemporaneous records. Second, declined enhancement increase 11 Eighth Circuit affirmed basis memorandum order. (1981). We granted certiorari, 455 988, 102 1610, 71 847 (1982), now vacate remand further proceedings. 12 Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 240, 95 1612, 44 141 (1975), reaffirmed "American Rule" ordinarily shall bear own unless there express statutory authorization contrary. response Congress enacted authorizing courts purpose ensure "effective access judicial process" grievances. H.R.Rep. 94-1558, p. (1976). Accordingly, " 'should special circumstances would render such unjust.' S.Rep. 94-1011, (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5912 (quoting Newman Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 400, 402, 88 964, 966, 19 1263 (1968)).2 13 fee, course, must facts case. On House Report refers twelve factors set forth Johnson Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 714 (CA5 1974).3 Senate cites well three decisions "correctly applied" factors.4 One Johnson, involved obtained," indicates level relevant awarded. confirmed degrees cases cited approvingly Report. 14 Stanford Daily Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680 (ND Cal.1974), aff'd, 550 464 (CA9 1977), rev'd 436 547, 98 1970, 56 525 (1978), plaintiffs declaratory judgment, moved preliminary injunction. defendants promised violate motion denied. time pursuing "substantially advanced clients' interests" obtaining "a concession result motion." F.R.D., 684. 15 Davis County Los Angeles, E.P.D. ¶ 9444 (CD important judgment requiring Angeles Fire Department undertake affirmative action program hiring minorities. awarding stated: 16 "It legally plaintiffs' counsel expended certain fact law ultimately become litigated upon prevail. Since merits excellent represented class, entitled reasonably ultimate same manner traditionally compensated fee-paying client matter." 9444, 5049. 17 Similarly, Swann Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Education, 66 483, 484 (WDNC 1975), "[t]he constituted accomplishment aims suit," despite losses "certain minor contentions." 18 these essentially complete relief. legislative history, therefore, does provide definitive answer standard setting success. Consistent appeals generally recognized relevance They adopted standards, however, applying principle succeed claims asserted.5 contend "an proportioned consistent prevailed, support compensated." Brief 24. agree relevant, but propose stringent focusing "whether prosecuting [an unsuccessful] any way contributed achieved." 46. Both acknowledge discretion area. take opportunity clarify fees.6 20 A "prevailing party" 1988.7 making threshold determination been framed ways. typical formulation "plaintiffs considered 'prevailing parties' purposes if litigation achieves some benefit bringing suit." Nadeau Helgemoe, 581 275, 278-279 (CA1 1978).8 generous brings across threshold. remains determine what "reasonable." 21 most useful starting point multiplied hourly rate. calculation objective make initial estimate lawyer's services. seeking submit evidence supporting claimed. documentation inadequate, reduce accordingly. 22 exclude "reasonably expended." Cases overstaffed, skill experience lawyers vary widely. Counsel good faith effort excessive, redundant, otherwise unnecessary, just lawyer private practice ethically obligated submission. "In sector, 'billing judgment' component setting. here. Hours billed one's adversary authority." Copeland Marshall, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 401, 641 880, 891 (1980) (en banc) (emphasis original). 23 product times rate inquiry. There remain considerations lead adjust upward downward, "results obtained."9 particularly deemed "prevailing" he situation questions addressed. fail succeeded? achieve makes satisfactory award? 24 present distinctly different theories. suit, defendants—often institution officers, case—counsel's work will another cannot "expended 5049 Cal.1974). congressional intent limit awards requires treated raised separate lawsuits, therefore claim.10 25 involving unlikely arise great frequency. Many single involve common core Much counsel's devoted whole, it difficult divide claim-by-claim basis. Such viewed series discrete Instead focus significance overall 26 results, fully compensatory Normally encompass indeed exceptional justified. lawsuit. See Litigants raise alternative grounds desired outcome, court's rejection reach sufficient reason reducing matters.11 If, hand, partial whole excessive amount. true interrelated, nonfrivolous, faith. authorized whenever bring conscientious tried devotion skill. Again, critical degree 27 Application complex challenges institutional practices conditions. type lengthy demands many lawyers' Although often unlawful conditions, range possible vast. That say little about expenditure achieved. case, example, 2,557 light example petitioners' mail, telephone policies overly restrictive, see n. 1, supra, excessive. 28 precise rule formula determinations. attempt identify specific eliminated, necessarily equitable judgment. exercised we identified. C second major Ideally, litigants settle settlement possible, applicant bears burden establishing entitlement documenting appropriate rates. exercise "billing judgment" worked, 434, maintain billing records enable reviewing distinct claims.12 30 reemphasize view superior understanding desirability avoiding frequent appellate review factual matters. important, concise clear explanation reasons When adjustment either nature plaintiff, IV 31 [respondents] trial certainly entitles them . ., need examining disposed prior order went [respondents'] favor." 219. winning losing stating fails prevails assessed "amount involved/results obtained" declared: "Not parties, import. [Respondents'] affects them, institutionalized similarly situated. justifies fee." 231. 32 These findings represent commendable explain Given interrelated theories err refusing apportion mechanically particular issues.13 And our holding today. 33 unable affirm below, award.14 [significant] fee" question "reasonable" success.15 emphasize inquiry relief, however significant, comparison scope whole. V 34 hold respects standards. 35 vacated, remanded proceedings opinion. 36 so ordered. 37 Chief BURGER, concurring. 38 read seeks pay detailed sought. inconceivable required establish much show fees. Judge not, my view, authorize established convincing shown necessary 39 presented presents quite bill client. latter presumably built up mutual trust respect; confidence judgment," ante, client, kind extensive statute cost adversary's is, adverse parties. As result, detail neutral judge can fair evaluation expended, service, allowed. BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS join, concurring dissenting part. 41 today holds 1988." Ante, 440. carefully worded statement interpretation reached appeals. receive 'they suit,' id., 433, citing 1978), litigating do theory, 434-435. Regretfully, join restating principles fees, omits elements additional evaluating entirely perform task entrusted it, Congress—I think rightly—has vindication individuals' society justice lawyer. 43 Furthermore, considers merely obtained, within zone explained meticulously. admits much. 438. Vacating remanding serve invitation engage socially productive types imaginable: concluded, likely affect final appeals, greatly costs vindicating rights, frustrate Where, here, comes facts, permit, duty promptly. 269, 1627, beyond competence judges "pick choose among statutes sue others." Congress, full authority decisions, responded challenge doing "picking choosing" itself. Its solution legitimates developed years before Alyeska1 available.2 Section manifests finely balanced asserting specified "fees attract competent counsel, produce windfalls attorneys." 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976) (hereinafter Report); cf. Report), 5913.3 emphasizes aspects prevent "windfalls," lower forget bona fide able find them. 45 enacting rejected traditional assumption choices litigate, compromise, forgo potential yield desirable enforcement far enumerated concerned.4 46 "All laws depend heavily enforcement, proved essential remedy citizens meaningful vindicate Congressional contain. 47 arising laws, citizen enforce money hire If assert Nation's fundamental proceed impunity, court." 2; 1-3, 5910.5 48 could, provided public funds government chose "limi[t] growth bureaucracy," 4, 5911, continuing rely bar6 paying obligations.7 49 Yet took steps "relief fund lawyers." 122 Cong.Rec. 33,314 (remarks Sen. Kennedy). plaintiffs, rather allowing anyone faith, 6-8, expressly common-law doctrine could frivolous vexatious 1938-1939; Christianburg Garment EEOC, 434 412, 416-417, 694, 697-698, 54 648 (1978). left deny "special circumstances" "unjust," 4; 6; (1968) (per curiam). 50 "[A] key feature mandate allowed court. passed party. Committee more moderate here leaving matter judge, guided course interpreting similar provisions." (footnote omitted). 51 At points, history reveals Congress's basic goal equivalent do, monetary recoveries (and hence out clients fees) seldom private-law Thus, specifies "in equally antitrust cases, nonpecuniary nature." 6, 5913. "counsel paid, clients, Ibid. 52 nearly market standards prevail, best ensuring available means paid efforts open non-civil-rights 400-410, 890-900 banc), both market-rate 899, 881. representing expect successful, feel "lard" solely augment balance struck goes awry. 53 accepts appropriate, taking into intend unlike value. lose others, correct awards. Any system accomplish checking insubstantial time, recognize advance give chance admits, "Such claims." 435. apparently share "common facts" concepts, ibid, actual develop closely intertwined. For instance, deposition official, cover territory includes sometimes virtually impossible how category other, incremental pursue small. 55 occasions reflect require customary Most promptly regard failure. Customary expectations. Attorneys contingency, thus deferring until ended risk all, charged difference, reflects time-value nonrecovery usually borne Courts never 100% win Therefore, inquiries checked delays pre-litigation likelihood prevail.8 U.S.App.D.C., 402-403, F.2d, 892-893; Northcross 611 624, 638 (CA6 1979); Lindy Bros. Builders American Radiator Standard Sanitation Corp., 540 102, 117 (CA3 1976). potentially Even justify induce situated comparable hand. 57 Setting side theoretical fear serious error vacating round guidance us. 58 made "commendable effort" "may consistent" today's professes "unable affirm" fee," App. Pet. Cert. A-16, accompanied "what 'reasonable' success." at438-439. 59 silent reasonableness award, imagine why presume, does, unreasonable explaining compelled. event, stated that: 60 "The concludes that, entire constitutes No portion characterized penalty damage Missouri." A-11. 61 addressed mentioned 1974), discussed 429-430, rubric "Reasonableness Fee." A-11-A-18. enhancing uncertainty factor, A-15-A-16, discounted 30% time," A-13. subheading "Amount Involved/Results Obtained": 62 measured terms dollars cents. involves class resulted changes regarding Not Plaintiffs' Id., A-16. 63 context regarded Simply changing word "a" "this," last sentence quoted, demands. notes relied Brown Bathke, 588 634 (CA8 "emphasis" regards misplaced. 438-439, 14. What finds suspicious implication calculated client's interest," i.e., nonfrivolous satisfies test. 637-638. refer language criticized Rather, footnote proposition "mechanical division ignores non-prevailing A-7, 637, 5. remainder concerned theories, becomes To extent, perfectly 434-436, 11. Circuit, brief, unpublished affirming cite all. A-1-A-2. 65 Perhaps questionable being misapplied circuit misinterpreting precedents implications, instructive applied fears. published opinions although abuse crossed threshold, See, e.g., Williams Trans World Airlines, 660 1267, 1274 1981); Handicapped Federation Andre, 622 342 1980) (rejecting over $200,000 $10,000 case); Oldham Ehrlich, 617 163, 168, 1980); Cleverly Electric Co., 594 638, 642 1979). circuits substantially identical. two-stage analysis, whereby obtain parties," directed exact due. mere preclude performed,9 rarely refuse done Syvock Milwaukee Boiler Mfg. 665 149, 163-165 (CA7 Jones Diamond, 636 1364, 1382 1981) banc); Lamphere University, 610 46, Equal Employment Opportunity Safeway Stores, 597 251 (CA10 401-402, 891-892, 18. courts, stressed expressed apparent measure parcel rights. supra; Gurule Wilson, 635 782, 794 (as modified en 275 1978). 67 Evaluation interrelatedness several lawsuit, appropriately heard decided subject discretion. implicitly recognizes, us injunctive requested, existence claimed, 173-179, strict plans, environment, future conduct mental health authorities measured, 188-195. large fixed improvements instituted 192-193 (treatment plans), 190-191 (staff); compare Deposition H. Bratkowski 12-13, 39, 106-114, 120-121 (increase staff litigation). understandable justifying spent, reduction 300 wasteful practices, 14, 13. 68 faithful objectives hesitate prolong concluded. whose spawn interesting, "related" optimal request. Paragraph-by-paragraph scrutiny explanations exercises courts' broad serves purpose, vindicates exacerbates myriad problems crowded dockets.10 69 articulated reverse low inadequate high constitute unmistakable windfall. 792 Furtado Bishop, 915, 923, 1980). falls rough poles accomplishes objectives.11 More exacting review, frustrates advances 70 systemic terms, judges' profitably substantive meant facilitate. Regular like generates steady stream opinions, yet harmonize after. Ultimately, 1988's straightforward command replaced vast body artificial, judge-made doctrine, arcane procedures, Frankenstein's monster meanders well-intentioned landscape waste confusion (not mention circuit-splits) wake. Within confines increases delay, uncertainty, expense deserve. Defendants—who deeper pockets lawyers, salaried counsel—have gain dragging longer proceeds, prospect improved pressure compromise up. itself perfect example. Petitioners, pay, managed delay owe years, ended, come. Respondents' hardly ever defending Justices deficient Apart protracted discourage victims elsewhere. obstacles placed path seek cases. less-than-certain prospects attorneys. anomalous construction "to rights," 9; 890 (fee intended incentive VII work). D 72 Few, any, differences framework matters nuance tone, tangential object scarce hearing sudden appearance Supreme precedent area unjustifiably provoke old fundamentally, led us, once writ below. dissent. "physical environment" 916-919. "individual plans" existing plans adequate, long preparation admitted lack regular operated plans. 921-922. "least unconstitutional transfer needed maximum-security confinement. 922-923. "visitation, mail" visitation punishment patients' due-process 923-925. "seclusion restraint" medication form behavior control. restraint 925-928. defendant vexatious, frivolous, harass embarrass defendant. (1976); Christiansburg 421, 700, (1978) ("[A] unreasonable, foundation, subjective bad faith."). are: (1) required; (2) novelty questions; (3) requisite service properly; (4) preclusion employment acceptance case; (5) fee; (6) contingent; (7) limitations imposed circumstances; (8) obtained; (9) experience, reputation, ability attorneys; (10) "undesirability" (11) length professional client; (12) 717-719. derive directly Bar Association Code Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-106. governed cases[,] nature. (5th Cir.1974), correctly Cal.1974); 483 1975). computing 'for matter.' Davis, Daily, supra 684." pp. 5908, Some flatly Bartholomew Watson, 910, 914 1982); Muscare Quinn, 614 577, 579-581 Hughes Repko, 578 486-487 Others Sherkow Wisconsin, 630 498, 504-505 Educ. Memphis City Schools, 1979), cert. denied, 447 911, 100 2999, 862 (1980); 634, 636-637 Still recovery depends 18, dism'd, 453 950, 27, 1033 (1981); (opinion rehearing); Univ., disagree believe "prevailed extremely degree." 22. practically advanced." 23. Part IV, infra, leave dispute remand. noted Hanrahan Hampton, 446 754, 758 1987, 1989 670 curiam), provision patterned provisions contained 1964, §§ 2000a-3(b) 2000e-5(k), 402 Voting Amendments 1975, 1973l(e)." 1964 Act." 5912. applicable party." Busche Burkee, 649 509, 521 454 897, 396, 212 (1982); Sethy Alameda Water Dist., 602 894, 897-898 1979) Cf. Taylor Sterrett, 640 663, 669 ("[T]he central exhibited acquired primary sought"). identified 714, 717-719 note subsumed banc). incurred responding it. 2, supra. upon." ratio aid factors. Nor requested. damages vice versa, time. "unrelated." Plaintiff's record minute expended. expenditures. 279 1978) ("As future, sympathy abused unreasonably claims."). addition, understates fired school teacher reinstatement, lost wages, $25,000 expungement derogatory material her record. She wages expungement, reinstatement damages. estimated granted. reversed. considered, "be weight reduces below 'reasonable fee' 637. 638. Our differs emphasis Brown. reinstatement. she 'obtained sought.' 636. implied withhold frivolous. Today otherwise. "minor" dissent errs suggesting acceptable changed. post, 451. note, unilateral levels asserted 70%-80% Memorandum Opposition Request Award Attorneys' Fees, Expenses Costs 30. true, catalyst increases, 2500 justifiable obviated conclusory U.S., 284-285, S.Ct., 1634-1635 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). 5913 ("This creates startling remedy—it meets technical requirements laid down continue attorneys' going decision."). Because selectivity, remedies created analogues resemblance rule: Rule," outcome "English defendant, pays winner's causes tied background rules governing distinction ignored. 429; 247, 1616. selected facilitates encourages reject half-measure compromises, New York Gaslight Club Carey, 54, 63, 2024, 2030, 723 while gives strong incentives avoid arguable place concessions hope early settlement, 407, 897 Dennis Chang, 1302, 1307 meritorious "appear cloaked mantle interest." (citing States Steel Corp. 519 359, 364 1975)). addition applicability. 966 more-or-less equal private, symmetrical calculations litigation—including entails represents better investment acceding opposing party's Of preferences financial positions, principal difference English Rule, tactical advantage Rule. But—in least—neither systematically favors defendants, versa. states: proceeding sections 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986 [Title 42], title IX Public Law 92-318 VI 90 Stat. 2641. drafted fee-shifting statutes, dating back Reconstruction-era 3-4; 260, 33, 1623, (1975). interest lies primarily providing neutral, easily forum resolving dispute, choice altogether, stands concern. But, conferred above plaintiff. put, vigorous finance themselves. persons, evaluate really worth stand spread Hall Cole, 412 5-7, 93 1943, 1946-1947, 702 (1973); Mills Auto-Lite 396 375, 616, 627-628, 593 (1970) (finding nonstatutory fund" exception reason). problem compounded doctrines official immunity availability governmental 9, 17. funding programs Legal Services Corporation: associated Eastern Missouri, Inc. use Government available. 2996f(b)(1). practice, free resources enforcement. Club, 70, 409-410, 899-900; Rodriguez Taylor, 569 1231, 1248 1977). imposition liability abrogate sovereign Fourteenth Amendment. 5; Fitzpatrick Bitzer, 427 445, 96 2666, Maher Gagne, 448 122, 128-129, 2570, 2574-2575, 653 (1980). imply "exceptional success" higher hours. contrary, approves Express 450-451. used already include money, ought percentage figure. By token, "excellent" merit 435; 452, 9. reports conclusion necessary. 430-431, 4. discussion circumstances, [§ 1988] pendente lite. Bradley School Richmond, 416 696, 94 2006, 476 (1974). especially added). 392, 625-626, (allowing lite "has produced, produce, recovery," still tried). "courts successfully relief." Parham Southwestern Bell Telephone 433 1970), Reed Arlington Hotel 721 1973)). Note "reasonable appeal," appellant issue, appeal. 726. Note, Promoting Vindication Through 80 Colum.L.Rev. 346, 352 having delegated responsibility policy, disturb balancing outside "zone reasonableness," patently inadequate. Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 747, 767, 1344, 1360, 312 (1968).

Category: 5