Opinion ID: 2603660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: determination of reasonable compensation

Text: Reasonable compensation within the discretionary structure provided to the hearing examiner by statute requires analysis. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). The exhaustive precedent reveals two separate concerns in providing the right to the worker and the protection to the payment obligor being either the state fund in general or the employer's account as a specified source. First is a requirement of a standard to determine the reasonable fee and second, a process for submission and resolution of any conflicts that develop. In this case, it is the process that has been raised primarily on appeal more directly than the standard for amount. We address these considerations in order. It is apparent that at least for worker's compensation cases, an acceptable standard is not provided by scheduled amount which is non-compensatory to the attorney and eliminates most, if not all, of the practicing bar from participation. Berger, Court Awarded Attorneys' Fees: What is Reasonable?, 126 U.Pa.L.Rev. 281 (1977). A reasonable fee has to be based on comparable services and the billing practice of the individual attorney directly related to the lodestar time requirement. D.C. Circuit Review September 1987-August 1988, 57 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 1063, 1122 (1989). The State of Wyoming has an identical interest in fair compensation to be provided to Phifer as was (and as is being done) for the tremendously expensive water litigation addressing specifically the Big Horn water cases, In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 753 P.2d 76 (Wyo. 1988), cert. granted 488 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 863, 102 L.Ed.2d 987, judgment aff'd 492 U.S. 406, 109 S.Ct. 2994, 106 L.Ed.2d 342, reh'g denied ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 28, 106 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), where fees in that one case undoubtedly exceed everything ever paid to all attorneys in the history of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. Additionally, Phifer resides in Wyoming and contributes to our infrastructure and society. Injured workers are not second-class citizens and the worker's compensation system cannot be second hand in responsiveness to their rights within the justice delivery system. We should not ignore a fair fee reasonableness factor when payment is not contingent and receipt not delayed. The analysis has to be based upon business decisions without applying some concept of significant donation by the attorney. [21] For present purposes in evaluating the statutory system providing a fixed-fee, time-based arrangement for a reasonable compensation, the allowance of legal service compensation within W.S. XX-XX-XXX(d) should be based on existent national and state case law and clear precedent of this court. The standard for determination starts with lodestar and accepts further adjustment within concepts directly related to reasonableness under the circumstances presented. UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Peyton, 774 P.2d 584 (Wyo. 1989). [22] See UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc., 774 P.2d at 593-606 and Bueno v. CF & I Steel Corp., 773 P.2d 937, 940-41 (Wyo. 1989). In UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc., 774 P.2d at 594, we specifically adopted the lodestar concept discussed in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) for application in a case of federal statutory entitlement. After excising the Hensley prerequisite of winning on the merits to receive reasonable fees, we continue to utilize the lodestar concept as the initial concept for determining attorney fees in worker's compensation contested cases. The lodestar standard is the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate. UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc., 774 P.2d at 595. `[R]easonable fees under  1988 are to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.' In Re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1423 (D.C. Cir.1989) [23] (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 895, 104 S.Ct. at 1547). In Blum, 465 U.S. at 893-94, 104 S.Ct. at 1546, the United States Supreme Court indicated Congress intended fees should not produce windfalls for attorneys but be adequate enough to attract competent counsel. [24] See D.C. Circuit Review, supra, 57 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. at 1124-25. This court will not presume Wyoming's legislature intended, by W.S. XX-XX-XXX(d), [25] for fees to be so low that no competent attorney could afford to accept an appointment to represent an injured hourly wage earner faced with a battle against the Attorney General's office and/or employer counsel. The inquiry does not end with lodestar which, when identified, can be enlarged or reduced by a variety of factors. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 718-19 (5th Cir.1974) (emphasis in original) states: [26] (1) The time and labor required.    (2) The novelty and difficulty of the questions.    (3) The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.    (4) The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case.    (5) The customary fee.    (6) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.          (7) Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances.    (8) The amount involved and the results obtained.    (9) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys.    (10) The undesirability of the case.    (11) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.    (12) Awards in similar cases. [ [27] ] We are then guided by ample precedent as to the proper process to be followed by the hearing examiner in review of the submitted billing and the standard then applied by the court in further examination upon any appeal. 1. The hearing examiner shall set attorney's fees based on a determination of the reasonableness of the fee requested for the work product within contemporary standards in that community. Gullett, 722 P.2d 619; In re Petition to Adopt Rule Regarding Atty's. Fees, Costs & Investigation Expenses of Private Attys. Appointed to Defend Indigent Defendants, 634 P.2d 1185 (Mont. 1981); Smith, 619 P.2d 1217; McKenney, 582 P.2d 573. [28] 2. If the amount is reduced from the claim made, the hearing examiner shall provide the appointed counsel an explanation for the reduction. Lueck, 669 P.2d 719; McKenney, 582 P.2d 573; 3 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law  83.13(b) at 15-1305 (1989). 3. In the event of a reduction by the hearing examiner, appointed counsel may petition for reconsideration and submit additional documentation and explanation. [29] McDanold v. B.N. Transport, Inc., 216 Mont. 447, 701 P.2d 1001 (1985); State v. Longjaw, 307 Or. 47, 761 P.2d 1331 (1988). 4. Based on the detail and documentation furnished and any countervailing evidence or information made part of the record, the final determination of the hearing examiner shall be entered. Longjaw, 761 P.2d 1331. 5. Judicial review shall first consider whether the test used for determination of the reasonableness of the fee is valid as a matter of law. If the standard for determination of reasonableness is legally proper, the test of applied decision is a matter of discretion to be considered within the standards of review whether substantial evidence in support of the decision is afforded pursuant to W.S. 16-3-114(c). See Bell v. United Princeton Properties, Inc., 884 F.2d 713 (3rd Cir.1989) [30] and Woodson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 102 N.M. 333, 695 P.2d 483 (1985). See also Gullett, 722 P.2d 619, where in Montana, a going rate standard was applied of $125 per hour for legal services and $35 for paralegal services, which totalled $17,959 in fees. A record adequately documented, detailed and defined in decision findings should deter the undesired second trial fee litigation. [31]