Opinion ID: 387362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Majority Failure to Apply New Formula to this Case

Text: 285 An additional flaw of major proportions in our colleagues' opinion is the faulty application of their new theory and model to the case at bar. They say, avowedly because of the age of the case and the position taken by the parties on appeal, that they will not send this case back to the trial court for an examination on the basis of the revised formula they have devised, 39 even though (i)t is readily apparent that the District Court's fee-setting calculations do not precisely conform to the procedures identified in earlier cases and elaborated upon earlier in this opinion. 40 This is really ducking the issue, the only issue on which this case was brought to this court. 286 In effect, the majority, perhaps influenced by this court's vast administrative law experience, has drifted into rulemaking like an administrative agency; the majority has made a rule for future cases, but declined to perform its primary function as a court-to adjudicate, to apply the rule to the very case at bar. 41 We have never been aware that a court may decline to adjudicate simply because a case is long on the docket; what a convenient way of clearing crowded dockets that would be. Nor may a court announce prospective rules but decline to apply them to the litigation before it on the speculation that the district court might have reached a result compatible with the new rule. 287 The lodestar approach would be better understood and supervised if the district judge here had a chance to run through the lodestar and exercise his ample powers of inquiry. 42 In order for an accurate fee to be set, the district court should have a chance to apply the majority's formula, looking into the contingency factors in this case and the possibility of a built-in contingency allowance in the hourly rate, regardless of the procedural posture of the parties. A remand is in order so that we may have an indication of how the formula works in practice. 43 288