Opinion ID: 2637250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Incentive fee.

Text: ¶ 25 Spencer asserts that the awarded fee should be enhanced specifically when considering the following Burk factors: time and labor required; novelty and difficulty of the questions; the fact that billing the client for any fees would have been futile as she was unable to pay the same; the amount at issue and the results received; and the undesirability of the cause. Undoubtedly, OG & E opposes enhancement on grounds that the original award of $2,500.00 was a reasonable fee. ¶ 26 Although this cause began as a simple declaratory judgment action with the hope of some money damages to be collected, it quickly became much more complicated. OG & E raised affirmative defenses of insufficient service, unclean hands, limitations, failure to mitigate, Spencer's negligence and federal preemption. Ultimately the electric company filed a motion to dismiss adding arguments of improper venue and lack of authority to award damages in a declaratory judgment action. Furthermore, this is a cause that Spencer's attorney took knowing that he would most likely not receive any fee from the disabled mother with three dependents. [32] Five thousand dollars to an individual in Spencer's situation most certainly was significant. Finally, this was not an attractive case. Although it involved a David vs. Goliath battle, there was little chance that the case would create a windfall in favor of Spencer's attorney in the nature of either the attention of the press or an increased client base. ¶ 27 Conversely, Spencer has been awarded fees based on a reasonable hourly rate and the time dedicated to this cause most certainly did not prevent the taking on of additional clients or caseloads. Under all these facts, we determine that the reasonable loadstar fee of $6,454.50 should be increased as an incentive by $650.00, approximately ten percent. [33] We hold that the total fee to be collected as costs from OG & E in Spencer's favor is $7,104.50.