Source: http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/attorneys-fees-in-civil-rights-cases.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:39:26+00:00

Document:
Statutory source of fees: Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides that a trial “court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the costs.” In enacting Section 1988(b), Congress “intended that the amount of fees awarded ... be governed by the same standards which prevail in other types of equally complex Federal litigation ... and not be reduced because the rights involved may be non-pecuniary in nature.” S.Rep. No. 94-1011. “The purpose of § 1988 is to ensure ‘effective access to the judicial process' for persons with civil rights grievances.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983)(quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 1 (1976)).
A District Court's “choice of rates [is] well within [its] discretion.” Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d 372, 393 (2d Cir.1994). The hourly rate to be awarded an attorney is a factual question to be reviewed for abuse of discretion. “We review the District Court's award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for abuse of discretion.” Green v. Torres, 361 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004). “We reemphasize that the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award. This is appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) (emphasis added).
“It is central to the awarding of attorney's fees under § 1988 that the district court judge, in his or her good judgment, make the assessment of what is a reasonable fee under the circumstances of the case. The trial judge should not be limited by the contractual fee agreement between plaintiff and counsel.” Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 96 (1989) (holding that lawyers who agree to not bill their clients may nonetheless recovery attorneys’ fees).
Standard of review: The hourly rate to be awarded to an attorney is a factual question to be reviewed for abuse of discretion. “We review the District Court's award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) for abuse of discretion.” Green v. Torres, 361 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004). “We reemphasize that the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award. This is appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (emphasis added).
(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney's customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in the case and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.
Johnson v. Ga. Highway Exp., 488 F.2d at 717-19.
Paralegals and support staff: In Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285 (1989), the Supreme Court held that “reasonable attorney’s fee provided for by statute should compensate the work of paralegals, as well as that of attorneys.” The same standards governing an award of attorneys’ fees to actual lawyers apply to paralegals. Id.
Billing methods and billing records: Block billing is disfavored, as it makes the District Court's fee determination more difficult. Block billing is not prohibited. The purpose of an attorneys fee application is to inform trial court, to allow trial court to make an informed judgment. “The applicant should ... should maintain billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). No cases require an attorney to bill her time in six-minute increments. The Supreme Court has cautioned that a “request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation” and “[p]laintiff's counsel, of course, is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, n. 12.
Do you know of any case law that a court should rule on an attorney fee petition and not wait for the appeal of the verdict?

References: § 1988
 § 1988
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1988
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1988
 v. 
 § 1988
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.