Opinion ID: 618982
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Clear and Concise Explanation for Hourly Rate

Text: The district court must provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933; see also Small v. Richard Wolf Med. Instruments Corp., 264 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir.2001). The Supreme Court has recently defined this obligation as requiring a judge to provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination. Perdue, 130 S.Ct. at 1676. In the absence of such explanation, adequate appellate review is not feasible, and without such review, widely disparate awards may be made, and awards may be influenced (or at least, may appear to be influenced) by a judge's subjective opinion regarding particular attorneys or the importance of the case. Id. The explanation need not be lengthywe have affirmed brief explanations that sufficiently describe the district court's approach to calculating the fee award and dispel any notion of an unfounded, arbitrary reduction based on the court's subjective view of what might be excessive. Strange v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Ga., 129 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir.1997); see also Small, 264 F.3d at 709. But however concise the explanation is, it must still be a rendering of reasons in support of a judgmentrather than a mere conclusory statement. Sottoriva, 617 F.3d at 976. The district court's opinion leaves us uncertain as to how it arrived at $400 as the reasonable hourly rate for Rossiello. The district court acknowledged that the affidavits and settlement agreements arguably support the hourly rate requested. The district court referenced the Laffey Index and the CPI adjustment as yielding rates lower than Rossiello's proposed rate, but both approaches still yield an hourly rate above $400. In fact, the district court's only reference to a rate lower than $400 was its comment that defendant's counsel reports charging defendant less than $250 per hour for his services. To conclude its discussion of hourly rate, the district court stated that an hourly rate of $400 will amply compensate Mr. Rossiello for his successful efforts. This language suggests that the district court may have made a subjective determination as to the just price for Rossiello's work, instead of making an objective determinationsupported by the evidenceas to the reasonable rate for Rossiello. See Pressley v. Haeger, 977 F.2d 295, 299 (7th Cir. 1992) (Prevailing plaintiffs are entitled not to a `just' or `fair' price for legal services, but to the market price for legal services.). We do not require district courts to give extensive explanations, but a clear and concise explanation is needed so that we can determine whether the district court considered the evidence and how it arrived at its ultimate award. Although the district court's opinion sufficiently describes its assessment of the evidence presented, the opinion does not sufficiently explain its reasons for selecting $400 as the hourly rate. In the absence of this explanation, we are unable to determine whether the district court's conclusion rests on a sound analysis. When the district court revisits this issue on remand, we urge the court to provide a meaningful explanation of its basis for the reasonable hourly rate. We do not pass judgment on whether $400 is a reasonable hourly rate for Rossiello. We hold only that the district court may not reduce the claimed hourly rate due to the presence of a contingent fee agreement, that the court may not disregard evidence of uncontested fee awards, that the court must provide plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to respond if it decides to rely on independent evidence, and that the court must sufficiently explain its fee determination with a clear and concise statement.