Opinion ID: 3036302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fee Division

Text: After determining that the total fees and costs should be $55,452.47, the District Court determined the amount due to Bartowski from Bradley’s portion of the settlement by subtracting from that total the $37,500 already paid by the DPA. Bartowski argues that the District Court instead should have divided the total costs in half, and treated the payment 4 from each client separately. On this interpretation Bradley’s portion of his fee would be $27,726.24. The local rule applied here places the decision of what fee is appropriate at the discretion of the District Court. E.D. Pa. Civil Rule 41.2(c). The District Court applied the standard of Polselli to determine the fee that Bartowski deserved for the entirety of his efforts. Having done so, there was no requirement that the District Court divide the fee between the DPA and Bradley. The District Court acted well within its discretion in ruling in such a way that Bartowski received the overall fee to which it had concluded that he was entitled. The only contrary authority that has been brought to our attention stands for the quite separate proposition that successive attorneys are each entitled to their fees quantum meruit. Mulholland v. Kearns, 822 F.Supp. 1161, 1169-70 (E.D. Pa. 1993).