Opinion ID: 197547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Windfall.

Text: C. Windfall. The district court's opinion suggests that a fee reduction is appropriate because the appellant had a shaky case and did not deserve to prevail on the merits. See supra note 2. Wholly apart from the accuracy vel non of the district court's assessment, this criterion is not a proper element of the feeaward calculus. Congress intended the Fees Act to effect attorney compensation in virtually all cases involving successful civil rights claims.9 See generally S. Rep. No. 94-1011 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5908; see also Williams v. Hanover Hous. Auth., 113 F.3d 1294, 1300 (1st Cir. 1997). After a jury's verdict has been rendered and has withstood whatever barrage of post-trial motions may ensue, the time for debate has expired. It is an abuse of discretion for the trial court thereafter to vent its skepticism about the claimant's right to recover by reducing the fee award to which the prevailing party is entitled. See Stefan v. Laurenitis, 889 F.2d 363, 370-71 (1st Cir. 1989) 8This case does not present the somewhat different question of whether a fee award in a civil rights action might be subject to reduction, apart from Rule 68, because the prevailing plaintiff received a damage award which was less than the defendant had offered in settlement. We leave that question for another day. 9Despite this policy interest, we have determined that counsel fees may be withheld altogether if special circumstances exist. See Domegan v. Ponte, 972 F.2d 401, 419 (1st Cir. 1992); Lewis v. Kendrick, 944 F.2d 949, 957-58 (1st Cir. 1991). Such circumstances are rare. They are not present here. 17 (refusing to allow district courts to balance equities of this sort when considering whether to award attorneys' fees under section 1988); see also DeJesus v. Banco Popular, 918 F.2d 232, 235 (1st Cir. 1990). In other words, the time for a trial judge to express his doubts about the viability of a claim occurs when the judge rules upon the full panoply of motions for judgment as a matter of law and/or for a new trial. Once a case has scaled those barriers and this case has trimming attorneys' fees cannot be employed as a palliative to assuage lingering doubts about the legal viability of the claim. See DeJesus, 918 F.2d at 235. Indeed, if a plaintiff has a thin case but nonetheless manages, as here, to secure a verdict for three times the largest settlement offer, such a template suggests skillful advocacy, perhaps worthy of an award of full fees.