Opinion ID: 2376955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Lack of Lodestar Multiplier

Text: ¶ 78 Justice Sanders asked the trial court to multiply his attorney fees award by a lodestar multiplier of 1.5 because his attorneys worked on contingency. CP at 1858. The trial court declined to do so because the rate times hours calculation of the award already exceeded the fee under the contingency contract. Id. Justice Sanders assigns error to this decision. ¶ 79 The lodestar method is appropriate for calculating attorney fees under the PRA. West v. Port of Olympia, 146 Wash.App. 108, 123, 192 P.3d 926 (2008) (applying Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wash.2d 398, 433-34, 957 P.2d 632, 966 P.2d 305 (1998), in the public records context), review denied, 165 Wash.2d 1050, 206 P.3d 657 (2009). A court using this method multiplies a reasonable attorney rate for the prevailing party by a reasonable number of hours worked, [28] and then has discretion, in rare cases, to adjust the product upward or downward. Mahler, 135 Wash.2d at 434, 957 P.2d 632, 966 P.2d 305. The uncertain nature of a contingency fee contract may merit multiplying the lodestar product by some amount. E.g., Broyles, 147 Wash.App. at 452-53, 195 P.3d 985 (using a lodestar multiplier in a contingency fee case). But, Mahler suggests that adjustments of the lodestar product are discretionary and rare. It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to give Justice Sanders the benefit of the exception when the rate times hours product already greatly exceeded the contingency fee for the case.