Opinion ID: 1345017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Attorney Fee Litigation

Text: Petitioners request attorney fees for the litigation of the attorney fee issue. In their favor, they cite Salmon, where we stated, [I]f a vindicated employee is required to expend attorney fees to recover the original fees to which he was entitled, the cost of these subsequent fees must also be reimbursed. Salmon, 916 P.2d at 896. Salmon, however, is a fee shifting case. In this case, we awarded petitioners fees under the common fund theory, to prevent the beneficiaries of their efforts from receiving a benefit without having to pay for their services. The common fund theory does not justify awarding petitioners fees for litigating the amount of the fee award. See Lindy, 540 F.2d at 111 (There being no benefit to the fund from services performed by [attorneys] in connection with their fee application, there should be no attorneys' fee award from the fund for those services.). The fees we award petitioners today compensate for the benefits they achieved on behalf of the ratepayers. Their litigation of the attorney fee issue benefits only themselves; thus we conclude that they should bear the burden of that expense. That they had to litigate the issue is not the fault of the ratepayers, as it would be the fault of the opposing party in a fee shifting case. In a common fund case, no one is being punished. Rather, all parties must simply bear their own burden. Thus we hold that as a matter of law, petitioners must pay their own costs for their litigation of the attorney fee issue. We award petitioners $1,201,843.75 less costs and fees of $370,576.30 paid pursuant to the Commission order to compensate for their costs and fees relating to the Stewart case. STEWART and RUSSON, JJ., concur in Justice DURHAM's opinion.