Opinion ID: 551496
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Fees

Text: 30 An award of attorney's fees must be reasonable and based on the prevailing rates in the community for the kind and quality of services furnished. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(4)(C) (1988). Typically, a court derives the amount of the attorney's fees award by multiplying the customary hourly rate for the services rendered and the number of hours reasonably expended. The court may in turn adjust this figure on the basis of several factors, which include: 31 (1) the time and labor required; 32 (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; 33 (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; 34 (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; 35 (5) the customary fee; 36 (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; 37 (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; 38 (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; 39 (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; 40 (10) the 'undesirability' of the case; 41 (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and 42 (12) awards in similar cases. 43 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937 n. 3, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (quoting Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974)). Four of these factors--the time and labor involved, the customary fee, the amount involved and the results obtained, and the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel--are particularly significant. Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 624 F.2d 575, 583 (5th Cir.1980). 44 The school district argues that the district court's award of attorney's fees was so excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion. The school district challenges the district court's refusal to adjust its fees award on the basis of several enumerated factors, including the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented and the results obtained. The court, however, specifically addressed these factors, concluding that the questions involved in the case were not unique and the results obtained were significant. District Court Order at 13. This Court is not inclined to disturb these conclusions. The school district's complaint of the reasonableness of the attorney's fees award echoes its substantive challenge that the relief Angela's parents recovered was de minimis. Perhaps the fact that a plaintiff failed to receive substantial relief might support a reduction in fees, 10 but in the instant case the relief Angela recovered was hardly de minimis. As already noted, Angela received a wide variety of benefits in the settlement agreement; indeed, she received virtually all of the remedies her parents requested. We find no abuse of discretion in the amount of the attorney's fees award. 45 We recognize, however, that the district court's award is no longer adequate to cover the fees of the parents' attorney. Because the school district has pursued this appeal, the parents' attorney was required to expend additional time and energy defending her clients' rights. The parents are entitled to reimbursement for the additional fees their counsel has incurred. Fontenot v. Louisiana Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 835 F.2d 117, 121 (5th Cir.1988). Accordingly, this Court remands this case to the district court for consideration of the amount of attorney's fees reasonable for this appeal.