Opinion ID: 1127593
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The initial award of attorney's fees

Text: Appellate Rule 508 governs awarding attorney's fees in superior court, on an appeal from an administrative decision. Rosen v. State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy, 689 P.2d 478, 480 n. 3 (Alaska 1984). The award of these fees is committed to the discretion of the superior court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 482-83. The superior court need not explain its basis for awarding fees; it must only explain denials. Id. at 480. NSB asserts that the superior court abused its discretion in awarding Barraza $8,000 in attorney's fees. Its chief complaints regard the structuring of Barraza's agreement for fees with her attorney, which provided that her attorney was to be paid for one-third of the amount recovered less costs, and that the amount recovered included attorney's fees. NSB's focus on the structure of Barraza's agreement with her attorney is misplaced. The superior court stated: Such arrangements are irrelevant to the attorney's fee award. The fee award is based on the value of the services rendered.... Therefore, there appears to be no link between the fee arrangement and the amount awarded by the superior court. NSB further alleges that the superior court's use of the phrase measure of success implicates the provisions of Civil Rule 82, since it is only under Rule 82 that we have endorsed this factor in awarding attorney's fees. Therefore, NSB argues that the limitations of Civil Rule 82 apply. NSB provides no authority for the proposition. More importantly, the superior court's use of this factor in awarding the fees does not on its face constitute an abuse of discretion. For these reasons, NSB's contentions regarding the initial award of attorney's fees should be rejected.