Opinion ID: 1223840
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Full actual fees

Text: MOA argues that full actual fees should not have been granted because there was no finding that MOA litigated in bad faith. The purpose of shifting attorney's fees under Civil Rule 82 to the non-prevailing party is to compensate a prevailing party partially, not fully, for attorney's fees incurred in litigation. Demoski v. New, 737 P.2d 780, 788 (Alaska 1987). The class, however, argues that full actual fees were reasonable since class counsel would otherwise be seriously undercompensated. The class asserts that Civil Rule 82 is designed to compensate a prevailing party, but is not intended to compensate a litigant's attorney, which in non-class action cases is a matter resolved between the attorney and client in their fee agreement. The class's counsel states that since the court must approve the amount of fees counsel receives, and the awarded fees are counsel's only source of compensation, MOA should be required to pay the class's full fees or counsel will be undercompensated. The issue of undercompensation in this case is properly addressed in the Step 1 analysis. Once the fair value of counsel's services to the class has been determined, the traditional Rule 82 analysis may be applied in Step 2. Because we remand for reconsideration of fee issues in light of the two-step Gentile methodology, and because the superior court on remand will be free to reconsider the Rule 82(b)(3) factors, we need not now decide whether it was error to award the class full hourly fees against MOA, and whether class counsel was undercompensated.