Opinion ID: 2314990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Fee Reduction

Text: The foundational Supreme Court case, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), counseled in an oft-cited admonition that [a] request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation. Therefore, the determination of the reasonableness of attorney's fee amounts is clearly a matter within the trial judge's discretion. District of Columbia v. Jerry M., 580 A.2d 1270, 1280 (D.C.1990). The same discretionary standard applies to attorney's fees determinations by an administrative agency. Alexander v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Comm'n, 542 A.2d 359, 361 (D.C.1988). This is appropriate in view of the [trial court's or agency's] superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters. Hensley, supra, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941. The general procedures for determining the presumptively reasonable lodestar amount [7] and then, in exceptional cases, making upward or downward adjustments thereto, Henderson v. District of Columbia, 493 A.2d 982, 999 (D.C.1985), have been expounded a number of times, even as to RHC cases in particular, and need not be set forth again in detail. See, e.g., Jerry M., supra, 580 A.2d at 1281 & n. 10; Alexander, supra, 542 A.2d at 361-62; Ungar, supra note 2, 535 A.2d at 892 (discussing application of factors set forth in Frazier v. Center Motors, Inc., 418 A.2d 1018 (D.C.1980), as rearticulated and refined in District of Columbia v. Hunt, 525 A.2d 1015 (D.C.1987) (per curiam)). [8] [T]he fee applicant bears the burden of ... documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. Hensley, supra, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941; Jerry M., supra, 580 A.2d at 1281 (initial burden of showing that fees claimed are reasonable falls upon the fee claimant). [9] Moreover, as with other agency determinations, the agency decision with respect to the award of attorney's fees is presumed to be correct, and thus the Association bears the burden of demonstrating that the RHC abused its discretion in reducing either compensable hours or hourly rates. See Cohen v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Comm'n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C.1985). Here, the RHC operated within the proper procedural framework and considered the relevant information before it in reaching its 16 page decision. The question we face is whether the RHC abused its discretion in finding that the Association failed to carry its burden of persuasion in justifying its request, [10] and in setting its ultimate award of attorney's fees in an amount markedly less than that sought by the Association.