Opinion ID: 2598546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the attorney's fee awarded to plaintiffs is reasonable

Text: ¶ 16 We now turn to review the question of the reasonableness of the attorney's fee awarded by the trial court. [34] Plaintiffs' fee application shows 169.1 hours performed by two attorneys for a total fee claimed of $16,655.00, or approximately $98.50 per hour. Defendants object that the fee claimed and awarded is excessive for a case in which the issues were simple, the amount recovered was small relative to the amount sought, the trial was of short duration, and the lead attorney's inexperience caused him to spend an excessive amount of time in preparation. After hearing evidence, the trial court awarded plaintiffs a fee of $17,005.00. Judged by the applicable common-law standard of review, the trial court's fee assessment cannot be said to constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. ¶ 17 An attorney's fee must in every instance be reasonable. [35] The criteria for determining a reasonable fee for legal services are set out in State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City. [36] An attorney seeking an award must submit to the trial court detailed time records and must offer evidence of the reasonable value of the services performed based on the standards of the legal community in which the attorney practices. [37] The correct procedure for arriving at a reasonable fee is (a) first to determine from the detailed time records a baseline fee by multiplying hours expended times the attorney's hourly rate and (b) then to enhance that fee by adding an amount arrived at by applying the factors set out in Burk, taken from federal court practice, or those provided in Rule 1.5 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. [38] The final determination of an appropriate fee is further subject to the rule that it must bear some reasonable relationship to the amount in controversy. [39] ¶ 18 The record shows that the trial court followed these guidelines in assessing the amount of the award. The baseline amount was arrived at from the detailed time records submitted with the application by multiplying the hours expended by an hourly rate just under $100.00 per hour. A hearing was conducted at which two experienced local practitioners familiar with civil litigation testified that the minimum hourly rate in the local legal community is $100.00 per hour. Each also testified that he had reviewed the time records submitted with the fee application and had concluded that the hours expended were reasonable. Defendants called a third local attorney to testify, who opined that an hourly rate of $90.00 per hour would be more reasonable given the experience level of plaintiffs' primary attorney. He also testified that an experienced attorney would probably have spent only one hundred hours, rather than one-hundred sixty nine hours, on the case. The trial judge accepted the testimony of the two attorneys who found the baseline amount to be reasonable and awarded a fee in that amount with a relatively negligible enhancement of $350.00. [40] On this record, we cannot say that the trial judge's decision was clearly erroneous or without a basis in reason or evidence. ¶ 19 Defendants contend that an award which amounts to sixty-five percent (65%) of the amount recovered is excessive on its face. We disagree. While we are committed to the rule that a fee for legal services must bear some reasonable relationship to the judgment, [41] we have never identified a percentage above which a fee's relationship to the damage award must be deemed unreasonable per se. In Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Parker Pest Control, Inc ., [42] we approved a $3,000 fee award for a suit in which the plaintiff sought $3,867 and the defendant confessed judgment for $1,500. [43] In Arkoma Gas Company v. Otis Engineering Corporation , [44] we affirmed a fee award of $5,500 in a breach of warranty case in which the plaintiff sued for more than $70,000 and ultimately recovered only $100. [45] In Catlin Aviation Company v. Equilease Corporation [46] the court approved a fee of $600 on a recovery of $1,167 where the plaintiff had sued for $17,000. [47] The allowance awarded in the instant case is clearly within the range of fees in relation to damages previously approved by the court. ¶ 20 Defendants urge us to consider the fact that there is a contingency fee arrangement extant between plaintiffs and their attorneys under which plaintiffs' attorneys are entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the award on appeal. Defendants contend that plaintiffs' attorneys will garner a windfall by collecting both the contingency fee ($13,000.00) and the statutory fee ($17,005.00). Our pronouncement in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Weeks, [48] which prohibits an attorney from retaining both a contingent fee and a statutory award, provides a complete answer to this concern. ¶ 21 We hold that the trial court's counsel-fee award to plaintiffs of $17,005.00 rests on competent evidence. The reasonableness of an attorneys' fee request is a question of fact for the trier. The trial court is in a far better position to judge the demands of the case than are we. Upon the record submitted, we cannot say that the award is clearly erroneous or that it is unsupported by reason and evidence. ¶ 22 Plaintiffs have timely applied to this court for an appeal-related attorney's fee. An appeal-related counsel fee may be awarded in cases where there is statutory authority to award a fee for legal services rendered in the trial of a cause. [49] Plaintiffs' motion is granted, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for an adversarial hearing to determine a reasonable fee for legal services provided to plaintiffs in appeal- and certiorari-related proceedings. [50]