Opinion ID: 1217413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: cavallero cross-appeal

Text: While the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Cavallero pursuant to Rule 68, it did not consider the proper factors in fixing the amount to be awarded. The district court stated that in view of the amount of the offer ($8,500.00), the amount of recovery for attorney's fees will be limited to $5,000.00. We conclude, however, that the amount of the offer of judgment is not relevant to a reasonable award of attorney's fees. We have previously outlined the proper factors to consider in a discretionary award of attorney's fees: (1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, training, education, experience, professional standing and skill; (2) the character of the work to be done: its difficulty, intricacy, importance, the time and skill required, the responsibility imposed and the prominence and character of the parties when they affect the importance of the litigation; (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time and attention given to the work; and (4) the result: whether the attorney was successful and what benefits were derived. Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31 (1969) (quoting Schwartz v. Schwerin, 85 Ariz. 242, 336 P.2d 144, 146 (1959)). Because the district court based its award on the amount of the offer of judgment and not the factors listed in Brunzell, we remand this matter to the district court with instructions to reevaluate the award in light of the proper factors.