Opinion ID: 421654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Determination of Allowable Hours

Text: 27 Notwithstanding the 5,377 hours that the District Court cut from plaintiffs' amended application, defendants contend that the Court nevertheless awarded fees for too many hours of time. To support this contention, the State points to numerous entries in plaintiffs' fee application that were either excessive or duplicative. These examples primarily involve plaintiffs' five lead attorneys--Ennis, Hansen, Kirklin, Kellermann, and, most of all, Barrett. While the State's illustrations establish that plaintiffs' application contained multiple errors and excesses, the State has not persuaded us that the District Court was in error in its calculation of allowable hours. 28 In ruling on the fee application, the District Court dealt with plaintiffs' five lead attorneys principally through individual percentage cuts, ranging from five percent to twenty percent. Judge Bartels was acting within his discretion when he chose to make percentage reductions in response to defendants' detailed claims that the fee application contained excessive and duplicative hours. In similar cases with voluminous fee applications, courts have recognized that it is unrealistic to expect a trial judge to evaluate and rule on every entry in an application. See Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 903 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc) (22% cut); Ross v. Saltmarsh, 521 F.Supp. 753, 761-62 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (5% and 10% cuts), aff'd mem., 688 F.2d 816 (2nd Cir.1982); Kane v. Martin Paint Stores, Inc., 439 F.Supp. 1054, 1056 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (10% cut), aff'd mem., 578 F.2d 1368 (2d Cir.1978). These courts have endorsed percentage cuts as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application. 29 Nor do we find any reason for quarreling with the percentages selected by the District Court. We note that the specific instances of excessive or duplicative entries alleged by defendants on this appeal place in doubt between 1,500 and 2,000 of the hours claimed by the five lead attorneys and that the percentage reductions made by the District Court eliminated more than 1,700 of the hours requested by these attorneys. Furthermore, the attorney with whose application defendants find most fault--Barrett--was also the attorney against whom the District Court assessed the largest across-the-board cut--twenty percent. To a large degree, Judge Bartels appears to have accepted the defendants' assessment of the plaintiffs' application. 30 On a more general level, the State complains that Judge Bartels should have made further reductions in his award because plaintiffs' attorneys overstaffed the litigation and sought fees for time spent on background research. The District Judge refused to disallow these hours, and ruled that plaintiffs' use of multiple counsel was appropriate in light of the complexity of the litigation and that plaintiffs' background research was essential to their success. 5 31 In assessing the extent of staffing and background research appropriate for a given case, a district court must be accorded ample discretion. Under section 1988, prevailing parties are not barred as a matter of law from receiving fees for sending a second attorney to depositions or an extra lawyer into court to observe and assist. See Seigal v. Merrick, 619 F.2d 160, 164 (2d Cir.1980). Nor are counsel forbidden from receiving fees for background research. See Ross v. Saltmarsh, supra, 521 F.Supp. at 757-59. Of course, a trial judge may decline to compensate hours spent by collaborating lawyers or may limit the hours allowed for specific tasks, but for the most part such decisions are best made by the district court on the basis of its own assessment of what is appropriate for the scope and complexity of the particular litigation. A district court's determinations on such matters will be overturned on appeal only when it is apparent that the size of the award is out of line with the degree of effort reasonably needed to prevail in the litigation. 32 In this case, the District Court allowed plaintiffs compensation for 11,034 hours of legal work, which is roughly equivalent to five and a half years of work by a single attorney. Given the complexity of the Willowbrook litigation and the number of years the suit has gone on, we do not believe that the number of hours allowed by the District Court was disproportionate. Nor do we believe that the award of five and a half years of attorney time supports defendants' claim that plaintiffs overstaffed or overresearched this case. While the defendants have shown that the plaintiffs' fee application contained serious shortcomings, the District Court adequately responded to those shortcomings with its percentage cuts from requested hours. 33 In reviewing the District Court's ruling on allowable hours, our task in assessing the State's objections has been complicated by plaintiffs' failure to maintain contemporaneous records. It is hard to weigh claims of overstaffing and duplication against the plaintiffs' estimates of hours expended. Without a detailed record of how plaintiffs' attorneys spent their time, we have little choice but to show considerable deference to the District Court's conclusion as to how many hours were reasonably compensable. In light of the difficulties that can be traced to the failure of plaintiffs' attorneys to keep contemporaneous time records, we are tempted to accept the State's proposal that plaintiffs be denied all attorney's fees. There is no excuse for the sparse documentation that accompanied at least portions of plaintiffs' original application for attorney's fees. Well before the Willowbrook litigation began, this Circuit announced that any attorney who hopes to obtain an allowance from the court should keep accurate and current records of work done and time spent. In re Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co., supra, 339 F.2d at 115; see In re Wal-Feld Co., 345 F.2d 676 (2d Cir.1965). The record shows that the plaintiffs were hoping to receive court-ordered attorney's fees as early as 1975 when they negotiated the consent decree and reserved the right to apply for attorney's fees. At the very least, plaintiffs' attorneys knew they would be seeking fees after March 22, 1978, when the District Court ruled that they were eligible for attorney's fees under section 1988. 34 We recognize, however, that it might be unfair in this case to deny plaintiffs all attorney's fees simply because they failed to maintain contemporaneous records throughout the litigation. Dicta in Grinnell II may have led plaintiffs to believe that fees would be awarded as long as hours expended were estimated by careful reconstruction. 560 F.2d at 1103. Moreover, it is possible that plaintiffs' attorneys, in failing to keep better records, relied on language in the decisions of other circuits, which suggests that non-profit law offices are not required to keep the same sort of records that would be expected of private practitioners primarily engaged in rendering services for fee-paying clients. See, e.g., Harkless v. Sweeny Independent School District, 608 F.2d 594, 597 (5th Cir.1979). 35 However unfair it would be to rule retroactively that plaintiffs' attorneys should have kept better records in the past, the difficulties raised by the lack of contemporaneous records in this case convince us of the need to announce for the future that contemporaneous time records are a prerequisite for attorney's fees in this Circuit. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, --- U.S. ---- - ----, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1943, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (Burger, C.J., concurring). Now that Congress has enacted more than 120 statutes authorizing the award of attorney's fees, see Attorney's Fee Awards Reporter, Oct. 1982, at 2-3, and litigation over attorney's fees has itself become a significant addition to the legal landscape, see generally id., 6 we think it appropriate to convert our previously expressed preference for contemporaneous time records, McCann v. Coughlin, 698 F.2d 112, 131 (2d Cir.1983); In re Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 339 F.2d 114, 115 (2d Cir.1964), into a mandatory requirement, as other Circuits have done, see National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1982); 5th Cir.R. 22.2, reprinted in 693 F.2d No. 3, at lxxiii (Jan. 10, 1983); see also E. Larson, supra, at 281 (recommending that all litigating attorneys keep daily time records); cf. A. Miller, Attorneys' Fees in Class Actions 344-45 (Federal Judicial Center 1980) (recommending trial court require time sheets at pretrial conference). Hereafter, any attorney--whether a private practitioner or an employee of a nonprofit law office--who applies for court-ordered compensation in this Circuit for work done after the date of this opinion must document the application with contemporaneous time records. These records should specify, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done. 36 Although we do not believe that plaintiffs in this case should be denied attorney's fees for failing to keep contemporaneous records, we think the omission precludes an award of attorney's fees for time spent preparing and litigating the fee application. The District Court allowed 322 hours of attorney time spent on the fee application, time valued at $35,626. In the ordinary course, prevailing parties are entitled to fees for preparing an application under section 1988, see Gagne v. Maher, 594 F.2d 336, 344 (2d Cir.1979), aff'd on other grounds, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980). In this case, however, such an award is not appropriate. The inordinate amount of time plaintiffs' attorneys spent on the fee application was a direct result of their failure to keep better records. Because there were no contemporaneous time records, plaintiffs' attorneys, as well as defense counsel, had to spend numerous hours reviewing documents and preparing affidavits in support of their application. Had plaintiffs kept better records, both parties would have had a simpler time litigating the application for attorney's fees. Accordingly, we conclude that it was unreasonable for the District Court to grant plaintiffs' attorney's fees for 322 hours spent in connection with the fee application itself. See Lund v. Affleck, 587 F.2d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1978). 37 In summary, as to the number of compensable hours, we accept the District Court's determination of the number of compensable hours that plaintiffs' attorneys spent on the substantive portions of the litigation, but reject the Court's allowance of any time spent on the fee application.