Opinion ID: 2637250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Burk analysis.

Text: ¶ 13 A trial court's attorney fees award is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [15] An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where there is no rational basis in evidence for the ruling. [16] Generally, the correct formula for calculating a reasonable fee is to: 1) determine the compensation based on an hourly rate; and 2) enhance the fee through consideration of the factors outlined in Burk v. Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659 ( Burk factors). [17] In all cases, the attorney fees must bear some reasonable relationship to the amount in controversy. [18] ¶ 14 The factors set out in Burk v. Oklahoma City are: time and labor required; novelty and difficulty of the questions; skill requisite to perform the legal service; preclusion of other employment; customary fee; whether the fee is fixed or contingent; time limitations; amount involved and results obtained; experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys involved; risk of recovery; nature and length of relationship with the client; and awards in similar causes. An attorney seeking an award must submit detailed time records and offer evidence of the reasonable value of the services performed based on the standards of the legal community in which the attorney practices. [19] Thereafter, steps are taken to determine a reasonable fee. First, from the detailed time records, [20] a lodestar fee is arrived at by multiplying the attorney's hourly rate by the hours expended. Second, the fee may be enhanced by application of the Burk factors. Finally, any fee so calculated is subject to the rule that it must be reasonable and bear some reasonable relationship to the amount in controversy. [21] ¶ 15 In Burk, we set forth the following directive to trial courts: A particular word of caution to the trial judges of Oklahoma is here warranted. When a question on appeal presents the issue of reasonableness of attorney's fees awarded by the court, abuse of discretion by the trial judge is the standard of review. Therefore, the trial court should set forth with specificity the facts, and computation to support his award. While the compensatory fee is not all that difficult a problem on review if the trial court has made findings into the record regarding hours spent and reasonable hourly rates, the value placed on additional factors will be different in each case. Obviously, the reasonable value to be given for incentive fees should bear a reasonable relationship to the aggregate hourly compensation. Here, the trial court listed the Burk factors in making his ruling. [22] Nevertheless, there is no evidence that guidelines other than the comparison of the fee to the amount recovered played any real role in setting the $2,500.00 attorney fees award. No baseline was arrived at from either Spencer's detailed time records or the draft records offered by the electric company. The awarded fee did not result from the multiplication of an hourly rate, based on evidence presented, times the hours expended. Simply, the trial court awarded the fee based on a determination that the cause was never worth more than $5,000.00 and that it would not support an award of more than $2,500.00 in attorney fees. The award does not comport with the guidelines of Burk v. Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659.