Opinion ID: 2575840
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Computer-assisted research

Text: DFS also requests $3,858.38 for computer-assisted research charges as an element of its attorneys' fee recovery. Paiea, on the other hand, contends that the inclusion of computer-assisted research charges in any award of attorneys' fees is improper inasmuch as computer-assisted research charges are already incorporated into a law firm's overhead and are thus already reflected in the attorneys' fees charged. Although we have not previously had occasion to pass upon the foregoing issue, the Intermediate Court of Appeals [hereinafter ICA], in Bjornen v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 81 Hawai`i 105, 912 P.2d 602 (App.1996), squarely addressed a request for an award of computer-assisted research costs. [8] The ICA initially noted that several treatises regarded the costs related to computer-assisted research as subsumed within an attorney's fee and therefore such costs may not be awarded in addition to attorneys' fees. [9] Id. at 107, 912 P.2d at 604. The ICA subsequently conducted a survey of the federal jurisdictions, stating that: [t]he majority of federal courts subscribe to the view that costs of computer legal research are properly reflected as part of the law firm's overhead and, as such, are a factor to be included in the setting of attorneys fees as opposed to ordinary costs. In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 142 F.R.D. 41, 47 (D.Puerto Rico 1992). See Wolfe v. Wolfe, 570 F.Supp. 826, 828 (D.S.C.1983) (WEST-LAW charges are incidental to attorneys' services and, therefore, are not considered to be valid costs); Friedlander v. Nims, 583 F.Supp. 1087, 1088-89 (N.D.Ga.1984) (expenses of computerized legal research are properly considered a component of attorney fees and are not recoverable as costs). Id. at 108-109, 912 P.2d at 604-605. Accordingly, the ICA ruled that disbursements for computerized legal research ... are a component of attorney fees and are not taxable costs. Id. at 109, 912 P.2d at 606. [10] Inasmuch as we agree with the ICA's ruling, we are also compelled to conclude that the computer-assisted research charges in the present case are not recoverable as separately billed attorneys' fees. Although it appears that some federal jurisdictions might accept DFS' argument, [11] our endorsement of Bjornen precludes us from traversing a similar analytical path. Where a law firm passes its computer-assisted research charges to a client, allowing that client to recover those charges as an award of attorneys' fees debases the rule stated in Bjornen inasmuch as computer-assisted research charges would henceforth be recoverable so long as the party seeking recovery classifies the charges as separately billed attorneys' fees rather than taxable costs. We thus decline to render Bjornen susceptible to such form over substance arguments and take the present opportunity to expressly state what the rule in Bjornen logically implies  that computer-assisted research charges are subsumed within a law firm's overhead and therefore the client may not recover such costs by classifying them as separately billed attorneys' fees. Accordingly, we deny DFS' request to recover $3,858.38 in computer-assisted research charges.