Opinion ID: 387362
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Special Problems with Small Firms and Solo Practitioners

Text: 315 a. The argument is made that small law practices will not be able to prove expenses as high as those of better established practices or larger firms, and thus will not be able to secure equivalent fees for the same work. 316 This may or may not be true (small firms frequently have higher per lawyer overhead), but the question of course arises: Is there any alternate work in which such firms would have been engaged in which they would get greater fees? The answer is that these firms, perhaps composed of younger lawyers, will get just as good fees as any alternative work they could possibly do, and probably better at this stage of their careers. 317 A more fundamental answer is that if both small and large firms obtain a full return of their actual expenses, plus a reasonable profit, there can be no inequity in the treatment of large and small firms. 318 b. It is alleged that the formula is inapplicable to a solo practitioner, because there are no guideposts as to his salary from his associate's salary or his partner's income. 319 Perhaps the solo practitioner is a case in which a fairer award can be made without using the cost-plus formula, and there is nothing in our opinion which mandates the cost-plus formula in every case. However, it would be possible to take the going salary rate of several firms for lawyers of the same years of experience, extrapolate if need be, and award the solo practitioner a fee based on that plus his overhead and a reasonable profit. 320