Opinion ID: 729739
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Initial Attorneys' Fee Award

Text: 3 On June 25, 1991, the district court awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs under 1988 in the total amount of $443,642.56. Most of the plaintiffs were represented locally by the law firm of Arriola, Cowan & Bordallo (AC&B). GNA and Laurie Konwith were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project (ACLU-RFP), which is based in New York. An attorney from the Guam office of the ACLU also worked on the case.
4 The district court awarded fees for local counsel based upon hourly rates between $150.00 and $200.00 per hour. 1 The district court determined that these rates reflected the prevailing market rates for lawyers of similar skill and experience. In setting the hourly rate, the district court also found that: 5 each attorney's skills contributed to the successful result, which was achieved in a compressed time frame. Each attorney still faces the prospect of no recovery of fees or costs. 6 The district court then calculated the lodestar by multiplying these hourly rates by the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation. 7 The district court also concluded that this was a rare and exceptional case which warranted a multiplier of 2.0 to the lodestar figure for AC&B. The district court relied in part on the contingent nature of local counsel's representation. However, the district court also found that plaintiffs would have faced substantial difficulty in securing other counsel to represent them and that this was an undesirable case given its visibility and controversial nature in Guam's small and predominantly Catholic community.
8 The district court determined that the prevailing market rates for ACLU-RFP counsel were between $25.00 and $241.00 per hour. 2 These rates were supported by affidavits from other New York attorneys. The district court also mentioned the following factors in justifying the rates: (1) the attorneys' skill and experience; (2) the novel legal issues the case presented; (3) the distance between New York (where the ACLU-RFP attorneys practice) and Guam; (4) the short time frame in which the case was litigated; (5) the results obtained; (6) the lack of legal resources available on Guam; and (7) the possibility that no fees or costs would be recovered. It declined to apply any lodestar multiplier to the ACLU-RFP award.