Opinion ID: 2524968
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Avoid unjust enrichment

Text: The usual fee-shifting statute is not intended to replicate exactly the fee an attorney could earn through a private fee arrangement with his client. ( Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088.) In a particular case, an award of reasonable attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute might not match the actual amount a client has paid or agreed to pay, because such awards generally are computed from their reasonable market value ( Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643, 186 Cal. Rptr. 754, 652 P.2d 985) even if the attorney has performed services pro bono or for a reduced fee. (See also Blum v. Stenson (1984) 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 [`reasonable fees' under [42 U.S.C.] § 1988 are to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel].) In this case, of course, plaintiff, the client, has not paid defendants any fees, and it remains disputed whether any enforceable contract provides for disposition of the fee award. An attorney who appears in propria persona, doing all the legal work involved in a matter, is not entitled to collect statutory attorney fees. ( Trope v. Katz, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 292, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241, 902 P.2d 259 [fees sought under Civ. Code, § 1717]; Kay v. Ehrler (1991) 499 U.S. 432, 437-438, 111 S.Ct. 1435, 113 L.Ed.2d 486 [same, in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 case].) A fortiori, defendants argue, a person who is represented by counsel, and thus has done none of the legal work for which statutory attorney fees are intended as compensation, should not (absent agreement) be entitled to retain any such that may be awarded. Without concluding that such reasoning would hold in every context, it seems evident that, in general, where attorney compensation has neither been paid nor forgiven and there is no contract assuring it, allowing a victorious litigant to retain the proceeds of a fee award (in addition to a substantial damages judgment) would confer an unjustified windfall.