Opinion ID: 1436528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Chancellor's Assessment of the Fees' Reasonableness

Text: On appeal, Mahani does not challenge the fee shifting provision itself, but rather argues that the Chancellor did not assess the reasonableness of the fees and expenses as required by Delaware law. Mahani contends that the Chancellor's decision to enforce the fee shifting provision of the Agreement makes it clear that the court abdicated any role in determining whether the fee was a `reasonable fee[.]' EDIX argues that the Chancellor assessed the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees and expenses. EDIX contends that the Chancellor did not place exclusive weight on DLRPC 1.5(a)(4), but rather . . . place[d] `considerable weight' on other factors including `[t]he time and labor required to carry a case to trial.' [14] The language of the Chancellor's opinion illustrates that the Chancellor weighed several factors when he assessed the reasonableness of the fees and expenses, and decided not to award the fees and expenses exactly in proportion to [EDIX]'s success on the merits and not to reduce EDIX's award because EDIX vigorously pursued its contractual rights. [15] In particular, the Chancellor found that Mahani's conduct leading up to and during trial outweighed EDIX's limited trial success and justified the award of the full amount of EDIX's attorneys' fees and other expenses. The record demonstrates that the Chancellor assessment of the reasonableness of EDIX's attorneys' fees and expenses was carefully considered, based on facts in the record, and was neither arbitrary or capricious as a result.