Opinion ID: 74395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Express's Fee Award

Text: On cross appeal, Express raises this issue: whether the court erred in not determining whether Express's attorney's fees request for its out-of-state counsel, Cadwalader, was reasonable and in summarily rejecting the fee request because Cadwalader had sent no representative to testify at the evidentiary hearing. We review an award of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion. See American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427 (11th Cir.1999). An abuse of discretion occurs if the judge fails to apply the proper legal standard or to follow proper procedures in making the determination or bases an award [or a denial] upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous. United States v. Gilbert, 198 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir.1999). On these facts, we believe that discretion was abused. We have previously said that a fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement and of documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates. See Norman v. Housing Authority of the City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir.1988). We have also noted that courts are often faced with fee applications that are not well-prepared which are sometimes supported by opinions on reasonableness. See id. In those circumstances, the court is itself an expert on the question and may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value. Id. Therefore, where documentation or testimonial support is lacking, the court may make the award on its own experience. See id. Moreover, we have said that a court's order on attorney's fees must allow meaningful appellate review. The trial court should articulate and give principled reasons for its decisions and show some calculations. If the court disallows hours, it must explain which hours are disallowed and show why an award of those hours would be improper. Id. at 1304. In this case, Express submitted billing records in support of its fee application for both its local and its out-of-state counsel. Express's expert had reviewed the billing records of both firms, had interviewed both 7 billing partners, and testified about the reasonableness of the fee requests. Express's expert was cross-examined by Coastal on those matters. And, Coastal's expert had reviewed the billing records of both firms and testified on the reasonableness of the fee request. The only difference in the evidence presented between the fee request that was allowed (Express's fee request for its local counsel's fees) and the fee request that was denied in its entirety (Express's fee request for Cadwalader's fees) was that in the former there was testimony by members of the firm about what they had worked on in the case. In the latter, there was no testimony by a member of the Cadwalader firm. The issue thus becomes whether just Cadwalader's failure to send a representative to testify at the evidentiary hearing on fees precludes the award of any fees where it is undisputed that Cadwalader had performed work on this case, Cadwalader had submitted its billing records to the court, and expert testimony (which had been subjected to cross-examination) had been presented about the reasonableness of the fees. The answer is no. We do not want attorney's fees proceedings to be full trials. In this case, the evidence available to the court was sufficient for the court to have used its own expertise to assess the reasonableness of the fee request and to award some fees. It was an abuse of discretion to disallow altogether Express's request for Cadwalader's attorney's fees just because Cadwalader did not send a member to the hearing. We do not intend to discourage a court from scheduling an evidentiary hearing where appropriate. To the extent that the absence of certain testimony about a firm's billing records means that specific questions the court might have go unanswered, that is a factor which a court may use in determining whether certain amounts requested were unreasonable. But, in the circumstances of this case, a firm's failure to send a member is, in itself, an insufficient reason to disallow completely a fee request. We must vacate the court's decision on this issue and remand with instructions that the court determine whether the amount of fees requested by Express for the services of Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, were reasonable. 8 For the reasons stated herein, the judgment below is affirmed except that we vacate and remand for a determination about the reasonableness of the fee request. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 9