Opinion ID: 1407452
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lodestar calculation of attorneys' fees

Text: Beginning with an analysis based on the common law factors of reasonableness, we proceed with a lodestar calculation of reasonable attorneys' fees using the hourly rate quotes and time sheets submitted by counsel for TERI plaintiffs. Because neither party disputes that the hourly rates submitted by counsel for the TERI plaintiffs are reasonable given the professional standing of counsel and the nature of the case, the chart below reflects this Court's determination that counsel for TERI plaintiffs' current rates constitute a reasonable hourly rate for purposes of a lodestar calculation. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Emp. Res. Mgmt., Inc., 176 F.Supp.2d 510 (D.S.C.2001) (explaining that a reasonable hourly rate is determined by comparing the rates of the prevailing party's attorneys to the prevailing market rates in the community for similar services by lawyers of comparable standing). In order to reflect his role as lead counsel in class action litigation, the lodestar analysis uses Mr. Lewis's premium hourly rate which he typically reserves for difficult cases. Turning next to the reasonable time spent on the litigation, we first consider that the time sheets submitted by counsel for TERI plaintiffs include all of the hours spent on the litigation of the case (designated in the chart below as Total Hours Expended), with no distinction between time associated with the TERI participants' claims giving rise to the instant case, and time associated with the Working Retirees' claims, which were remanded. Although the record indicates that Working Retirees constituted roughly one-third of the class of plaintiffs in Layman, we do not find it necessary to adjust the total hours expended by this proportion in order to arrive at a reasonable fee in this case. Not only were the same legal theories advanced on behalf of both the TERI participants and the Working Retirees, making their claims virtually indistinguishable, but more importantly, guiding jurisprudence explicitly holds that a party need not be successful as to all issues in order to be found to be a prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorneys' fees under the state action statute. [8] Heath, 302 S.C. at 182, 394 S.E.2d at 711. Only in an abundance of caution, however, do we reduce the number of total hours expended by three percent (3%), rounded down to the nearest tenth, in order to account for any time devoted solely to the Working Retirees' claims, thereby arriving at what we view as a reasonable number of hours expended on the TERI participants' claims (appearing as Net Hours Expended in the chart below). See Edmonds, 658 F.Supp. at 1135 n. 18, 1147 n. 44 (performing a lodestar analysis and adjusting the time devoted to litigating the underlying case by two to three percent in order to account for the fact that some hours may not be properly compensable). Based on the foregoing, the Court calculates the lodestar fee in this case as follows: Total Net Hours Hours Expended Expended Hourly Rate Totals Lewis & Babcork A. Camden Lewis 139.5 135.3 $600.00 $81,180.00 Keither M. Babcock 224.8 218.0 $350.00 $76,300.00 Ariail E. King 109.7 106.4 $225.00 $23,940.00 Peter D. Protopapas 14.6 14.1 $250.00 $ 3,525.00 William A. McKinnon 262.1 254.2 $225.00 $57,195.00 Brady R. Thomas 25.2 24.4 $200.00 $ 4,880.00 Paralegals 271.3 263.1 $ 80.00 $21,048.00 Law Clerks 144.2 139.8 $ 70.00 $ 9,786.00 Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A. Richard A. Harpootlian 97.5 94.5 $500.00 $47,250.00 David Scott 96.8 93.8 $250.00 $23,450.00 Heather Herron 44.6 43.2 $ 80.00 $ 3,456.00 Holli Langenburg 5.1 4.9 $ 80.00 $ 392.00 ____________ TOTAL $352,402.00