Opinion ID: 359726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: quality factor

Text: 66 The district court also multiplied the lodestar by a factor of 1.5 to account for what it believed to be the excellent result achieved in this case, and to account as well for the special experience, expertise, and quality of performance of plaintiff's attorneys. We believe that the district court allowed too great an increase to account for the quality of the work performed by plaintiff's counsel. As noted in part II-B, Supra, the decision in Lindy II makes it clear that the district court should have considered the general quality of plaintiff's counsel, their reputation, expertise, and position when it set the reasonable hourly rate. Accordingly, such factors should not have been considered in deciding whether to augment or diminish the lodestar because of quality. 67 Moreover, as we have repeatedly stressed, any addition to or subtraction from the lodestar to account for the quality of an attorney's work is designed to take account of an unusual degree of skill, be it unusually poor or unusually good. Lindy I, supra, 487 F.2d at 168. An increase or decrease for quality reflects exceptional services only, Lindy II, supra, 540 F.2d at 118, and (i)n making allowance for the quality of work, the court must keep in mind that the attorney will receive an otherwise reasonable compensation for this time under the figure arrived at from the hourly rate. Lindy I, supra, 487 F.2d at 168. 68 In this case, application of the standards established in Lindy II to judge quality leads us to doubt whether the court was justified in increasing the lodestar for quality. Indeed, in the circumstances of this case, the district court should consider whether the lodestar should be reduced because of the quality of counsel's performance. Here the extent of actual recovery does not compare favorably with the amount of liability to which Wilson was exposed. Lindy II, supra, 540 F.2d at 118. This case did not involve complex factual or legal issues, and it is difficult to say that the professional methods utilized were efficient, or that the benefits produced warrant the awarding of the full value of the hours expended. Merola II, supra, 515 F.2d at 168-69. 69 Further, we doubt the correctness of the district court's approach to the quality factor in light of the improper conduct of plaintiff's attorney at the first trial. That misconduct was solely responsible for great duplication of effort and expense in this case, not only for the parties but for the court. It should be remembered that the defendant, who must pay plaintiff's attorneys' fees, was required to incur the considerable additional expenses associated with the second trial solely because of plaintiff's error. Plaintiff, of course, will be denied compensation for the hours caused by the improper conduct of his attorney. Even so, we do not believe that fact prohibits the district court from considering the egregious error of plaintiff's attorney in adding to or subtracting from the lodestar because of the quality of the work performed. 70 Finally, the quality factor like the contingency factor should be evaluated in relation to the amount of the lodestar. The amount to be added to account for quality (o)ften . . . will bear a reasonable relationship to the aggregate hourly compensation. Lindy I, supra, 487 F.2d at 169. Only in the most unusual circumstances will the quality of the attorney's work justify so large an increase as was allowed in this case. 71 In this regard, we stress that the proper calculation of the lodestar is by definition the calculation of a reasonable compensation for the time expended by the attorney. As such, it usually will equal, or closely approximate, the ultimate fee to be awarded. Adjustments in the lodestar allowed for unusual quality are designed to account for exceptional circumstances only. Such adjustments should not be used automatically in the routine case to round out fees that are otherwise the result of the calculation of the lodestar. And (t)he heavy burden of proving entitlement to such an adjustment is on the moving party. Lindy II, supra, 540 F.2d at 118. 72 Consequently, upon the remand the district court should re-evaluate the quality factor once it has calculated the lodestar. And it should do so in light of the factors we have outlined, as well as in light of the size of the lodestar as redetermined.