Opinion ID: 2445003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Thomas-Ojos's Case

Text: The analysis by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County encapsulates the approach that we approve in this opinion. [13] The District Court had awarded fees equal to 15% of the amount of principal requested at trial. Although finding this Court's discussion of the lodestar method in Friolo instructive regarding the awarding of attorney fees[,] the Circuit Court first correctly found that it was not bound to employ that method. The Circuit Court proceeded to consider the reasonableness of such a hypothetical award in light of the factors enumerated in Rule 1.5 of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct: 1. The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly. Counsel has submitted billing for more than 10 hours of professional service to defend its client in a District Court matter and the appeal instituted therefrom, against a pro se litigant. The entire original District Court proceeding lasted no more than 15 minutes with a judgment in favor of appellant. It proceeded as an affidavit judgment matter. The appeal proceeded with no opposition by the appellees. This was a contractual dispute that involved no novel or difficult questions of law and as appellant stated is ordinary litigation. It did not require any specific level of skill. 2. The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment of the lawyer. There is no allegation that the client was aware that the firm would be unable to accept other employment. There is a long standing relationship with the firm. 3. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services. Nagle & Zaller does not have competitive rates with other law firms in this locality. Documents submitted by appellant purport to show competitive rates. None are reflective of fees charged in Prince George's County. 4. The amount involved and the results obtained. The principal amount sought in this case is $1,281.00. The attorney's fees sought exceed $2,000.00. While there are circumstances in civil cases where the cost of proceedings can exceed the principal amount sought, there must be a reasonable relationship to the amount involved. See Reistertown [ Reisterstown ] Plaza Assoc. v. General Nutrition Center, Inc. 89 Md.App. 232, 246 [597 A.2d 1049] (1991). In the present case, more than one half of the fees are associated with pursuing additional attorney fees in a case where there has been little or no opposition and constituted ordinary litigation[.] There is no reasonable relationship to the amount involved. 5. Time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances. Appellant does not argue that this factor has any bearing on the award of attorney fees in this case. 6. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. Montpelier Hills Homeowner's Association has been a client of Nagle & Zaller, P.C. for more than ten (10) years. 7. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services. Nagle & Zaller is a firm experienced in the community association law field. The attorney primarily assigned to this case is a member of the Maryland bar with less than 4 years experience. 8. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent. The fees charged by Nagle & Zaller were either flat fees or based on an hourly rate for time. A review of the records noted discrepancies in billing. In sum, this Court does not find the attorney fees submitted to be reasonable or appropriate under the circumstances. They are, in fact, excessive. Appellant has also requested payment for court costs, collection costs and interest. While court costs are appropriate as well as prejudgment interest, the request for collection costs has not been properly established and is excessive. Based on this reasoning, the court reduced the fee award to $300. Although billing by the hour is perhaps the most well-accepted basis for an attorney's charge to his or her client, other than a contingency fee, Rule 1.5 suggests other factors to be taken into account. The Circuit Court found several reasons to reduce the fee from the amount charged by Nagle & Zallerthe ordinary nature of the suit, the absence of opposition, the relative inexperience of the attorney, and the small principal amount involved. Moreover, the Nagle & Zaller fee schedule is a hybrid one, which sets a flat fee for the rote tasks, increased by hourly charges for attorney time outside of these tasks. The Circuit Court may well have considered the resulting fee too high, particularly because the tasks for which flat fees were assigned had no component for labor expended, and could have been performed by administrative assistants or paraprofessionals. The Association had the burden of establishing that these flat fee amounts were reasonable for the task performed. See Myers, 391 Md. at 207, 892 A.2d at 532. Although $300 is certainly close to the low end of what we consider to be the range of the Circuit Court's discretion, the court used the correct legal standard in evaluating the reasonableness of the fee, and did not abuse its discretion.