Opinion ID: 2102285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fee Application for Representation of Contemner in the District Court.

Text: Plaintiff's application for fees and expenses for services performed in representing Skinner in the district court under court appointment sought compensation for 30 hours and 8 minutes of attorney time and $85.76 in out-of-pocket expenses. The amount of compensation requested for the attorney time was $1808. The district court allowed the claimed out-of-pocket expenses to be reimbursed in full but awarded only $990 for attorney time. The nature of the services rendered by plaintiff in the district court, as shown by his application for fees, can be categorized as follows: Research and drafting 21 hrs. 50 mins. Review of court file 2 hrs. 5 mins. Conferences with client 3 hrs. 3 mins. Conferences with opposing counsel 10 mins. Courtroom proceedings 3 hrs. 0 mins. ________________ 30 hrs. 8 mins. In fixing the amount of plaintiff's compensation, the defendant judge purported to consider all of the factors we deemed pertinent in Hulse v. Wifvat, 306 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 1981). In justification of the reduction which was made in the amount claimed by plaintiff, the defendant judge stated: The court has no doubt, whatsoever, that Mr. Lunde actually spent this amount of time.... The necessity of spending that much time, however, is of some concern to the court. More than two-thirds of Mr. Lunde's time was consumed by research and drafting.... Some of those issues are novel and have yet to be resolved by an appellate court. Others have been determined previously by well-known precedents. The court cannot question the zealous manner in which Mr. Lunde has represented his client. It can, however, question the reasonable necessity of spending as much time as he did in legal research and drafting.... He had to spend some amount of time to familiarize himself with the relevant legal principles in this area, but the time actually spent in this endeavor may not have all been strictly necessary. Mr. Lunde shows over three hours devoted to conferences with [his client]. Most of the conferences were by telephone. Many of them occurred during a time period after the ... hearing when the necessity of conferences would have been questionable. In Walters v. Herrick, 351 N.W.2d 794, 796-98 (Iowa 1984), we observed that there are two types of challenges to trial court orders determining compensation for court-appointed counsel; (1) those asserting that an incorrect legal standard has been applied in fixing fees; and (2) those asserting an abuse of discretion in the application of the proper legal standard. We pointed out in Walters that: Our scope of review depends on what part of the challenge is being considered. Plaintiff's assertion that an incorrect legal standard was applied is reviewed on error. When an incorrect standard is applied we remand for new findings and application of the correct standard. When a correct legal standard is applied our review is greatly circumscribed; we affirm unless the trial court's discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id. at 796. (Citations omitted). In the present case, although plaintiff alludes to an abuse of discretion on the part of the defendant judge, he directs the bulk of his argument toward factors which he believes show that an incorrect legal standard was employed in fixing the amount of his compensation. We find no basis upon which we might determine that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the defendant judge in reducing plaintiff's fee claim as a result of the court's firm belief that more time than necessary was expended in pursuing Skinner's cause. Plaintiff therefore has shown no right to relief on an abuse of discretion theory. We direct the balance of our discussion to his claims that an incorrect legal standard was employed by the defendant judge in arriving at the amount of compensation. Plaintiff's first claim in this regard is that the defendant judge should have made a finding with respect to how many hours of attorney time were reasonably necessary in plaintiff's representation of Skinner. This is similar to an argument which was rejected in Walters v. Herrick . In Walters, we upheld a lump sum award made in consideration of the Hulse standards against a challenge that the weighted application of each of the Hulse factors must be set forth in the order allowing fees. Walters, 351 N.W.2d at 797. Based upon the considerations applied in our Walters decision, we conclude that a trial court, in fixing fees, need not specify the amount of hours deemed to have been reasonably necessary in carrying out the representation. Plaintiff also asserts that the defendant judge improperly went outside the record in considering the matter of customary charges for similar services in the community. We note that, to the extent this was done, it was only after the defendant judge made a specific finding that no evidence was presented as to the customary charges in the community for representing persons in contempt proceedings. Following that finding, the defendant judge resorted to his own relevant knowledge based on situations which, although not identical to a domestic relations contempt case, were sufficiently analogous to provide a meaningful standard of comparison. In so proceeding, the defendant judge did no more than follow our suggestion in Parrish v. Denato, 262 N.W.2d 281, 285 (Iowa 1978) that a court must consider all relevant and competent evidence submitted by the parties, as well as its own knowledge and expertise in determining reasonable attorneys fees. Next, plaintiff suggests that the defendant judge, in fixing the amount of his compensation for services performed under court appointment, failed to take into consideration the time he had spent representing Skinner prior to the order of appointment and for which he is unlikely ever to be paid. We find this claim to be without merit. In his application for fees, plaintiff stated: No fees and expenses have been shown for any time prior to the date of appointment, although services were, in fact, performed prior to that date and expenses were, in fact, incurred prior to that date. We find nothing in this statement which would have alerted the defendant judge to the nature of the prior services, whether plaintiff had been compensated therefore or would be compensated therefore, or that plaintiff expected such prior services to affect his fee claim in any way. The defendant judge did not err in failing to consider the allegedly prior uncompensated attorney time and out-of-pocket expenses in arriving at the amount of fees to be allowed after the order of court appointment. Lastly, we consider plaintiff's assertion that fee applications of court-appointed attorneys should be heard by judges other than those before whom the services were performed in those instances where appellate review has been sought with respect to the court's decision. The premise upon which this argument is based is that a judge whose decision is appealed will be biased against the attorney who has challenged it. We are not convinced that the potential for bias is substantial in the circumstances posed in plaintiff's argument. In balancing any potential for bias which this circumstance presents against the obvious advantages of having the fee application determined by the judge most familiar with the case, we decline to adopt the rule which plaintiff suggests. We have considered all claims advanced and in disposition of this matter sustain the writ only to the extent that the defendant judge is now directed to consider that portion of plaintiff's claim for fees and expenses which relates to the preparation and filing of the petition for certiorari in Skinner v. Ruigh . In all other respects, the writ is annulled. WRIT SUSTAINED IN PART; ANNULLED IN PART.