Opinion ID: 566371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inflation and contingent fee enhancements

Text: 41 In her cross-appeal, Ms. Soto challenges the district court's refusal to enhance the lodestar amount to account for inflation and to reflect the risk involved in taking the case on a contingent fee basis. We shall address each of these submissions separately. 17 First, we note that [a]n adjustment for delay in payment is ... an appropriate factor in the determination of what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee under § 1988. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 284, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989); see also Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council, 483 U.S. 711, 716, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 3082, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987). Nonetheless, because this action was relatively young when the district court determined the amount of attorney's fees, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by its refusal to adjust the lodestar amount upwards to account for inflation. See Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 803 F.2d 987, 993 (9th Cir.1986) (while adjustments may be justified because of inflation, they are not invariably required). 42 The Court in Delaware Valley also addressed the other issue raised in Ms. Soto's cross-appeal. The Court rejected, as a general rule, using the risk of loss as an independent basis for increasing an otherwise reasonable fee. 483 U.S. at 723, 107 S.Ct. at 3085; (plurality opinion). The plurality did acknowledge that some cases may justify a risk enhancement: Before adjusting for risk assumption, there should be evidence in the record, and the trial court should so find, that without risk enhancement plaintiff would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the local or other relevant market. Id. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089. This view was endorsed by Justice O'Connor and thus represents the Court's holding. See id. at 733, 107 S.Ct. at 3090 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); see also Skelton v. General Motors Corp., 860 F.2d 250, 254 n. 3 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 53, 107 L.Ed.2d 22 (1989); McKenzie v. Kennickell, 875 F.2d 330, 332 (D.C.Cir.1989). Under Delaware Valley, Ms. Soto therefore bore the burden of convincing the trial court that she would have found it difficult to obtain representation without the likelihood of a risk enhancement. She has identified no record evidence that would support an entitlement to enhancement.