Opinion ID: 1925734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Lower Court Applied the Correct Legal Standard in Determining Whether Atchison's Legal Fees were Reasonable.

Text: Court's Authority in Determining Reasonable Attorney Fees [¶ 2.] We will first address the lower court's action in determining the reasonableness of Atchison's fees. Our scope of review in a writ of certiorari is limited to determining whether the inferior court ... has regularly pursued the authority of such court. SDCL 21-31-8; Duffy v. Circuit Court, 2004 SD 19, ¶ 3, 676 N.W.2d 126. Regular pursuit of the trial court's authority requires it to apply the correct legal standard. We stated in Duffy: [I]n determining whether a trial court has regularly pursued its authority, we examine if the court applied an incorrect legal standard or whether the court abused its discretion to the extent that it acted illegally in setting the amount. The attorney is entitled to just and reasonable compensation. The judge determines whether it is just and reasonable. In applying the correct legal standard, the court is required to explain orally or in writing the reasons for modifying the attorney's submitted voucher considering the factors enumerated in this opinion. The attorney has the burden of proof to show that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard or acted illegally in setting the amount. 2004 SD at ¶ 19, 676 N.W.2d at 126. [¶ 3.] The factors for the court to consider are as follows: (1) the time spent and services rendered; (2) the complexity of the case and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the character and importance of the litigation; (4) the skill required to perform the legal service properly; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer performing the services; and (8) the possible punishment involved. Id. ¶ 16. The court should consider all the factors starting with the number of hours spent on the case multiplied by the hourly fee established for court appointments. Id. [T]he trial court is entitled to look at the case as a whole in light of the calculations and factors. Id. ¶ 17. The trial court should use its independent judgment but not overlook the `high standard of diligence and preparation demanded of counsel in criminal cases.' Id. ¶ 17 (quoting Hulse v. Wilfvat, 306 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Iowa 1981)). Although a court has the benefit of hindsight, it should not overlook the attorney's perspective in preparing for the case. Id. (citing Hulse, 306 N.W.2d at 709). [¶ 4.] Additionally, the court must `explain, either orally or in writing, the reasons for change or modification of the statement or voucher submitted by counsel.' Id. ¶ 18 (quoting South Dakota Rules for Compensation of Court Appointed Counsel). The attorney may request a review by the judges of the circuit. The procedure for review is set as follows: A. If the full amount of the voucher or statement for fees by counsel is not approved by the trial judge, the trial judge must explain, either orally or in writing, the reasons for change or modification of the statement or voucher submitted by counsel. B. Appeal. If the attorney is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation allowed by the judge presiding in the case, the attorney may request that all judges in that circuit review the claim for compensation and hold a hearing thereon. A decision by the majority of the judges in that circuit shall become the amount of the fees and costs authorized. Id. ¶ 13 (citing South Dakota Rules for Compensation of Court Appointed Counsel; Seventh Judicial Circuit, Standing Order 00-1).