Opinion ID: 1604758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court's Determination of the Hourly Rate

Text: The City contends that the trial court also abused its discretion with respect to the adjudged hourly rate of compensation. We agree. The trial court's order is silent as to any justifications for the determined rate of $175 per hour, except for a general statement declaring that the trial court had conducted numerous fee-award cases over the years and, therefore, was familiar with the hourly market rate in the area. We acknowledge that the trial court may indeed have its finger on the pulse of the Birmingham legal community, but, without evidence in the record regarding the area's market rate, we are unable to defer to its conclusions. The record reflects that Sullivan typically charged clients somewhere between $80 and $150 per hour for his representation. The record contains no other evidence as to rates of compensation. While the complexity of this case generally supports a higher rate, we note that the record is replete with testimony indicating that Sullivan and Williams were unfamiliar with the law applicable in this case and, therefore, had to expend numerous hours acquainting themselves with that law. This degree of unfamiliarity often reflects a lack of experience, which leads us to conclude that Sullivan and Williams had little experience in the area of law involved in this case. Therefore, based on the typical rate usually charged by plaintiffs' counsel, their level of experience in this area of the law, and the complexity of this case, we conclude that $150 per hour is a reasonable rate of compensation.