Document: 465 U.S. 886 104 S.Ct. 1541 79 L.Ed.2d 891 Barbara BLUM, Individually and in Her Capacity as Commissioner of New York State Department Social Services, Petitionerv.Ellen STENSON etc. No. 81-1374. Argued Jan. 11, 1984. Decided March 21, Syllabus The named respondent—who was represented by attorneys from the Legal Aid Society York, a private nonprofit law office filed civil rights action Federal District Court on behalf statewide class Medicaid recipients. complaint challenged certain procedures utilized for termination benefits. certified entered summary judgment it. After Appeals affirmed, respondent request an award attorney's fees under Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act 1976, which provides that federal actions "the court, its discretion, may allow prevailing party, other than United States, reasonable fee part costs." total requested amounted to $118,968, consisting $79,312 based some 809 hours work at rates varying $95 $105 per hour, plus 50% "bonus" $39,656 compensate complexity case, novelty issues, "great benefit" achieved. awarded full amount requested, holding expended charged, view market rates, were reasonable, bonus proper because quality representation, riskiness success, benefit large class" affirmed. Held: 1. statute legislative history establish "reasonable fees" are be calculated according relevant community, not cost providing legal services, regardless whether party is profit-making or aid organizations. Policy arguments favor cost-based standard should addressed Congress rather this Court. Pp. 892-896. 2. abused discretion awarding upward adjustment case. 896-902. (a) There no merit argument "upward adjustment" fee—calculated multiplying number times hourly never permissible. "product rate" normally "reasonable" fee, but "in cases exceptional success enhanced justified." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 ----, 103 1933, 1940, 76 40. 896-897. (b) However, failed carry her burden proving necessary determination record contains evidence supporting Court's conclusions litigation, high class. These factors generally reflected reasonableness billable rates. Moreover, does justify basis "riskiness" suit. Respondent established only billed reasonable. 898-902. 671 F.2d 493 (CA2 1981), affirmed reversed part. Melvyn R. Leventhal, City, petitioner. Leon Silverman, respondent. Justice POWELL announced opinion court. 1 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988 initial estimate properly reasonably litigation rate. --- 40 (1983). Adjustments then made particular two issues case intended awards service organizations whether, what circumstances, appropriate 1988. 2 * And 3 This suit brought 1978 respondents Medicaid1 recipients pursuant 1983 Southern York. Under law, one who eligible receive benefits Supplemental Security Income [SSI] program, 1381, et seq. (1976), automatically N.Y.Social Services Law 363, (McKinney's 1976). Prior suit, persons qualified fashion lost their if they thereafter became ineligible SSI payments. decided cross motions after set plaintiff's interrogatories had been served answered. On these motions, class2 rendered final respondents. 4 court enjoined prior practice automatic benefits, prescribed procedural included "(a) ex parte continued eligibility Medicaid, independent SSI; timely adequate notice such termination; (c) opportunity hearing." Stenson Blum, 476 F.Supp. 1331 (S.D.N.Y.1979). Second Circuit unpublished oral bench. 628 1345 (CA2),cert. denied, 449 885, 101 239, 66 111 (1980). Respondents' subsequent subject present B 5 Throughout office.3 In November 1980, period December through end litigation. Their three sought payment hour.4 approximately $79,312. request, however, increase fee. brief Court, explained $118,968. Petitioner opposed grounds exorbitant, charged unreasonable duplicative, improper. 6 submitted support claim unreasonable. Instead, it rested duplicative excessive exorbitant contained court's discretion. evidentiary hearing issue found discussion did reductions charged. Finally, petitioner argued improper would paid public. 7 held both It also increased 512 680, 685 (S.D.N.Y.1981). 8 opinion. Blum Stenson, 1981). We granted certiorari consider use services increasing above 2426, 77 1314 (1983).5 II 9 argues calculate leads windfalls counsel contrary express intent Congress. To avoid result, urges require all rate.6 Solicitor General, amicus curiae, adopt cost-related He reflect level compensation attract profit making attorneys, provide counsel. Because incorporate operating expenses exceed organizations, include element unnecessary counsel, General "confer unjustified windfall subsidy upon organizations." General's Brief, 6. 10 Resolution begins ends with interpretation statute. 1988, authorizes district courts litigants.7 enacting statute, directed standards currently fee-shifting statutes: 11 [§ 1988] governed same prevail types equally complex antitrust cases[,] reduced involved nonpecuniary nature. standards, see Johnson Georgia Highway Express, 488 714 (5th Cir.1974), correctly applied Stanford Daily Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680 (N.D.Cal.1974); Davis County Los Angeles, E.P.D. ¶ 9444 (C.D.Cal.1974); Swann Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Education, 483 (W.D.N.C.1975). have resulted competent do produce attorneys. S.Rept. 94-1011, p. U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 5908, 5913.8 12 four cited Senate Report, rates.9 None any mention standard.10 Petitioner's violates congressional intent, therefore, flatly contradicted 13 clear intend calculation vary depending plaintiff organization. citations make explicit. Daily, "must . decreasing conducted more act pro bono publico effort securing monetary return." F.R.D., 681. Davis, held: 14 determining awarded, legally plaintiffs' employed privately funded non-profit public interest firm. firms attorneys' computed traditional manner when perform otherwise entitling them fees. Empl.Prac.Dec., 5048-5049. 15 cannot assume endorse used Johnson, viewed kind "windfall profits" expressly prohibit. 16 counsel.11 policy advanced III 17 address now second question presented: was—as argues—an abuse Court.12 makes separate related arguments. First, she asserts rate alternative, constitutes 18 Where, here, resolution turns intention Congress, we look first statutory language unclear. enforce rights, discretion," "allow explains "a fee" "adequate [that does] attorneys." S.Rep. 94-10011, (1976). As noted, Report identified fee.13 19 Hensley, reviewed concluded within meaning U.S., S.Ct., 1940. recognized Id., 1940.14 our recognition justified success," agree petitioner's requires fee," there circumstances basic multiplied results either unreasonably low high. When, applicant has carried his showing claimed resulting product presumed contemplated 20 remaining appropriateness applicant. before us hours. affidavits respondents' claim, even mention, entitlement revision. merely states conclusory novel, complex, far-reaching significance people. without elaboration, accepted reasons approving supplied additional own. increase, referred class, Appeals, affirming, shed light why thought substantial appropriate. single sentence, simply repeated unsupported 21 offered withstand examination. presumably fully recorded thus warrant cases, course, where experience special skill attorney will expenditure fewer expected spend particularly novel issue. those Neither nor factor award. 22 having tried best position conclude representation high." reputation staff, doubt true.15 "quality representation," It, rare offers specific show superior expect "exceptional." See Respondents rationale example double counting. justifying award, explained: 23 "The consonant similar difficulty. [T]hey fair expertise, performed throughout considerations, I find hour excessive." F.Supp., 683 24 restated factors: complex." 685. 25 Not provided, candidly concede "fees [to attorneys] upper ." Respondent's brief, 42. Absent contrary, say representation. 26 ultimate outcome "was great needy people." explain, exactly how affected "Results obtained" twelve F.2d, 718, "particularly crucial deemed 'prevailing' though he succeeded claims relief." 1940 (fee must spent unsuccessful claims). acknowledgment "results subsumed award.16 briefs shows achieved 27 among statement "issues presented undertaking therefore risky." seeking adjustment, sure prompted statement. Nowhere identify risks associated risk nonpayment required record, contingent nature unjustified.17 28 sum, reiterate said Hensley: "where obtained excellent results, recover compensatory Normally encompass indeed enhancement reject 1988.18 us, ranging 809.75 charge introduced compensation. They adjustment.19 "fully compensatory." Accordingly, below insofar sum $39,656. 29 so ordered. 30 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 31 join write separately reaffirm my clearly indicated prevailing, recovering fees, ---- - 1944-1947, (1983) (BRENNAN, J., concurring dissenting part). 32 Although leaves unresolved, ante, 901, n. 17, always controlled proves determinative today's decision, determines justified. particular, (CA5 1974), 893-896. "Whether fixed contingent," consequently consideration setting explicitly (ND Cal.1974) (subsequently aff'd, 550 464 (CA9 1977), rev'd grounds, 436 547, 98 1970, 56 525 (1978)), several "correctly applied" standards. "increase average billing fact compensation, least part, nature." 685-686. clear, authorized adjustments 33 Indeed, allowing entirely consistent market-based approach today reaffirmed Lawyers marketplace can higher promptly paid, irrespective win lose. Similarly, account enhancing prevailing.* ensure 893-894, 9, treated similarly, 894-895 18, counsel" represent clients grievances, (1976); H.R.Rep. 94-1558, program medical assistance needy. jointly state governments. §§ 1396-1396k; N.Y. 363-369 consisted of: "New residents received due whose terminated ineligibility following; 1335. Society, private, dedicated since 1876 afford lawyer. well oldest formally organized society States. enjoys wide devotion staff service. told fourths budget Division nongovernmental contributors. Annual 49-52. Ann Moynihan 487 50 minutes hour. 682. She graduated school 1977, outset 11/2 years practicing attorney. J.A. 320-321. Paula Galowitz 166 $100 1976 clerk judge during year graduation. 335. Arthur Fried 155 (The parties 115 noted table typographical error). 1975 States Judge thereafter. 308-309. renew here out line "prevailing comparable experience, skill, reputation. 12-13, 15-21. decline further above, submit challenging accuracy supra, 1939, facts asserted waived right City Detroit Grinnell Corporation, 495 448, 472-473 1974) (where disputed, award). trial strategy choose, challenge complexity. specifically proposes [legal] plus, appropriate, margin profit." 17. Section part: "In proceeding provision sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 title ., Accord Inc., 718 ("The customary community considered."); 682 ("[In award,] value [attorney's] time ."); 5048 "normal rates" like experience); 486 reference litigation). legislating enacted By time, familiar calculating VII 1964, 2000e-5(k), judicially "private general" theory prevailed decision Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. Wilderness 421 240, 95 1612, 44 141 (1975). adopted Reference uniform. See, e.g., Waters Wisconsin Steel Works, 502 1309, 1322 (CA7 cert. 425 997, 96 2214, 48 823 Evans Sheraton Park Hotel, 503 177, 187 (CADC 1974); Tillman Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n, 517 1141, 1148 (CA4 1975); Kerr Screen Extras Guild, 526 67, 69-70 1975), sub nom. Perkins S.E.G., 951, 1726, 195 recognize, "market lawyer inherently difficult. Market prices commodities most determined supply demand. sense thing lawyers community. type lawyers, reputation, varies extensively—even widely. often devoted lawyer's But usually discussed client, negotiated, client pays wins loses. different setting: negotiation fee—found court—is losing party. Nevertheless, shown text critical inquiry representations comparisons. standard, inform assist exercise satisfactory evidence—in addition own affidavits—that A way to—for convenience—as characterized "bonus." opinion, spoke adjustment." think latter characterization fairer, Specifically, approved Fifth (1974). factors. 893-894. At another point observed inquiry. remain considerations lead adjust downward, including important 'results obtained.' " Each admirable records scholars, valuable clerkship experience. specializing social security against government. Yet none them, 1978, lawyers. note 4, supra. term "experience" used, quite limited. Nor believe benefited Unlike "common fund doctrine," percentage bestowed reflects Presumably, much diligent litigating small people, or, indeed, protecting individual. occasion being entitled one's adversary, ever adjustment. Part declined draw distinction respect between offices. presumptively stated "request result major litigation." 1941. Parties conscientious effort, made, resolve differences. empowered reasonableness. intimate knowledge responsibility encourage agreement. Contingency confused contingency arrangements commonly into representing plaintiffs An "entirely unrelated 'contingent fee' typical tort suits, might one-third whatever recovers. directly proportional recovery. Such describe[d] herein. Th[is] [amount rate, designed] obtained." Copeland Marshall, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 403, 641 880, 893 (1980) (en banc).

Category: 5