Opinion ID: 157699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorney Fees Calculation

Text: The landowners next contend that the district court erred in calculating attorney fees based on the lodestar method rather than on their contingency fee contract. As the prevailing party, the landowners were entitled to reasonable attorney fees under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 55-1210(c)(3). In determining the fees, the district court considered, among other factors from Rule 1.5 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, the landowners’ contingency fee contract with their attorneys. However, given the likelihood of success in the suit, the absence of a showing that counsel was precluded from other employment, and the lack of unique time limitations in the case, the court decided that the lodestar method (based on counsel’s time records and hourly rates) was more appropriate. We agree. In Kansas, “[t]he reasonable value of attorney fees lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Hawkins v. Dennis , 905 P.2d 678, 692 (Kan. - 14 - 1995). The trial judge is an expert in determining the value of legal services, and in so doing may draw on his own knowledge and experience. See City of Wichita v. Chapman , 521 P.2d 589, 599 (Kan. 1974). There is authority for the suggestion that a contingent fee contract should not be considered in determining reasonable attorney fees, except “to establish the employment of counsel and the purpose for which counsel were employed.” Wolf v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n , 366 P.2d 219, 234 (Kan. 1961); see Board of County Comm’rs v. Willard J. Kiser Living Trust , 825 P.2d 130, 146 (Kan. 1992); In re Estate of Robinson , 690 P.2d 1383, 1389 (Kan. 1984). However, other cases from Kansas indicate that, although a contingency fee contract cannot be the only criteria for determining a reasonable fee, it may be considered as one of several factors. See Hawkins , 905 P.2d at 691-92; Farmco, Inc. v. Explosive Specialists, Inc. , 684 P.2d 436, 444 (Kan. App. 1984). Here, the district court considered the landowners’ contingency fee contract among other factors and determined that the lodestar method was more appropriate given the nature of this case. We are unable to say that the court abused its discretion.