Document: 505 U.S. 557 112 S.Ct. 2638 120 L.Ed.2d 449 CITY OF BURLINGTON, Petitionerv.Ernest DAGUE, Sr., et al. No. 91-810. Argued April 21, 1992. Decided June 24, Syllabus* After ruling on the merits for respondents, District Court determined that they were "substantially prevailing" parties entitled to "reasonable" attorney's fees under fee provisions of Solid Waste Disposal Act and Clean Water Act. The calculated award by, inter alia, enhancing "lodestar" amount by 25% grounds respondents' attorneys retained a contingent-fee basis without such enhancement respondents would have faced substantial difficulties in obtaining suitable counsel. Appeals affirmed award. Held: fee-shifting statutes at issue do not permit beyond lodestar reflect fact party's basis. In Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council Air, 483 711, 107 3078, 97 585 (Delaware II ), this addressed, but did resolve, question essentially identical one presented here. position taken principal opinion case, id., 723-727, S.Ct., 3085-3088 (opinion White, J.) typical federal statute does an be enhanced account contingency—is adopted. advocated 's concurrence, 731, 733, 3089, 3090-3091 (O'Connor, J., concurring part judgment)—that contingency is appropriate defined limited circumstances—is rejected, since it based upon propositions are mutually inconsistent as practical matter; make turn circular test very large proportion contingency-fee cases; could possibly achieve its supposed goal mirroring market incentives take cases. Beyond approach, there no other basis, fairly derivable from statutes, which enhancement, if adopted, restricted fewer than all Moreover, compatible with issue, effect pay time (or anticipated time) cases where his client prevail; unnecessary determination reasonable Court's general rejection model favor model, see, e.g., Blanchard Bergeron, 489 87, 96, 109 939, 945-946, 103 67; setting more complex arbitrary, hence unpredictable, litigable. Pp. 560-567. 935 F.2d 1343 (CA2 1991), reversed part. SCALIA, delivered Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, opinion. Michael B. Clapp, petitioner. Richard H. Seamon, amicus curiae special leave Court. Barry L. Goldstein, respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 This case presents whether court, determining § 7002(e) (SWDA), 90 Stat. 2826, amended, 42 U.S.C. 6972(e), or 505(d) Federal Pollution Control (Clean (CWA)), 86 889, 33 1365(d), may enhance above order thus assumed risk receiving payment their services. Although different involved, we (1987) ). 2 * Respondent Dague (whom will refer place respondents) owns land Vermont adjacent landfill was owned operated petitioner City Burlington. Represented he sued Burlington over operation landfill. ruled, had violated SWDA CWA, ordered close January 1, 1990. It also prevailing party" Acts, see 6972(e); 1365(d). 732 F.Supp. 458 (Vt.1989). 3 calculating award, first found figures advanced attorneys' hourly rates number hours expended them, producing resulting $198,027.50. (What our termed "the product times rate," 478 546, 565, 106 3088, 3098, 92 439 (1986) I ).) Addressing Dague's request court looked Circuit precedent, provided " 'the rationale should guide court's discretion "[w]ithout possibility . competent counsel might refuse represent [environmental] clients thereby denying them effective access courts." ' (Quoting Friends Earth Eastman Kodak Co., 834 295, 298 1987)). Following guidance, declared "risk substantial" "absent opportunity [Dague] difficulty skill competence complicated field law." concluded "a appropriate, anything windfall attorneys." therefore $49,506.87. 4 respects. Reviewing various opinions II, when warranted remained open, expressly disagreed some Courts controlling. stated correctly relied and, holding findings clearly erroneous, upheld enhancement. 1343, 1359-1360 1991). We granted certiorari only respect propriety 502 1071, 964, 117 130 (1992). 5 provide background before us. Fees legal services litigation either "certain" "contingent" hybrid two). A certain payable regard outcome suit; contingent obligation depends particular result's being obtained. Under most common contract litigation, attorney receives loses. arrangement, bears nonpayment inverse case's prospects success: has 80% chance winning, 20%. 6 judgment nonpayment. process, addressed (there, 304(d) Air Act, 7604(d)) permits contingency. joined point three Justices, permitted. U.S., 3085-3088. judgment, "unless applicant can establish adjustment party finding local relevant market," 3091 (internal quotations omitted), any "must difference treatment class, rather assessment 'riskiness' case," 3089-3090 (emphasis original). BLACKMUN's always statutorily required. Id., 737-742, 754, 3092-3096, 3101. 7 again same issue. III 8 Section CWA authorize "award costs (including rea- sonable )" "prevailing substantially party." 6972(e) added); 1365(d) added). language similar many §§ 1988, 2000e-5(k), 7604(d); law construing what applies uniformly them. Flight Attendants Zipes, 491 758, n. 2, 2732, 2734-2735, 105 639 (1989). 9 figure has, name suggests, become guiding light jurisprudence. established "strong presumption" represents fee, I, supra, placed who seeks burden showing "such necessary fee." Blum Stenson, 465 886, 898, 104 1541, 1548, 79 891 (1984) held, argues here, been must go lodestar, compensate loss consequent Fee-shifting construed, contends, replicate economic operate private market, working expected charge premium ordinary rates. Petitioner argues, contrast, 10 note outset likely duplicate factors already subsumed lodestar. (and, therefore, risk) two factors: (1) factual claim, (2) establishing those merits. second factor, however, ordinarily reflected lodestar—either higher overcome difficulty, rate skilled experienced enough so. Blum, 898-899, 1548-1549. Taking through amounts double-counting. 726-727, 3087-3088 (plurality opinion). 11 factor (relative claim) good reasons why play calculation is, course, exists (no claim 100% success), so computation never end inquiry See 740, 3094 (BLACKMUN, dissenting). consequence awarding "merits" incentive bring relatively meritless claims meritorious ones. Assume, example, claims, underlying merit 20%, 80%. Absent prefer latter, four paid. But preference disappear: 20% multiplier (100/20), quadruple 1.25 (100/80) attach claim. Thus, posed each encourage brought, social cost indiscriminately encouraging nonmeritorious brought well. think unlikely objective "reasonable fees" provisions. "These designed form relief improve financial lot lawyers." 3098. 12 Instead urges adopt approach set forth concurrence. decline so, foremost because how intelligibly applied. On hand, require seeking "establish [he] 'would market.' 3091. forbid "on case." 3089-3090; 734, "based 'legal' risks peculiar case"). predominant reason claimant winner's paid loser view too risky (i.e., succeed), these propositions, matter, collide. King Palmer, 292 U.S.App.D.C. 362, 371, 950 771, 780 (1991) (en banc), cert. pending sub nom. Ridley, 91-1370. 13 concurrence base class." 3089 To begin with, cases—those monetary damages injunctive equitable relief—there "market treatment." Such scarcely exist, except extent Congress created artificial "market" fee-shifting—and looking meaning obviously circular. Our decrees follow "market," decrees. 285 68, 76, 906 762, 770 (1990) (Williams, concurring) ("I judicial defining vice versa"), vacated, 771 (1991), even apart uniform entire class cases, conceivable subject-matter-based subclass, cannot incentives. As discussed above, (and getting lawyers it) principally Contingency class-wide guarantees best (leaving aside double-counting problem described earlier) within class-average success compensated according requires produce services, having above-class-average overcompensated. 14 Looking concurrence's perceive And concluding whatever First, just statutory limiting prevailing) bars plaintiff recovering relating lost, Hensley Eckerhart, 461 424, 1933, 76 40 (1983), bar loss. 719-720, 724-725, 3083-3084, 3086-3087 (principal An operating pools cases: out successful gambled not. prevail. 15 Second, both "we generally turned away model"—which percentage value awarded primary action1—"to model." Venegas Mitchell, 495 82, 110 1679, 1682, 74 (1990). done noted, though often (perhaps, generally) results larger model. See, Report Study Committee (Apr. 1990) (lodestar method "give run up unnecessarily, lead overcompensation"). For 67 (1989), held governed, produced exceeded agreement between (which self-evidently adequate attract needed services). 945-946. feature inherent (since negotiating deciding accept case). engraft onto concoct scheme resorts increase reduce it. consistent awards, nor fee. 16 finally, interest ready administrability underlain adoption Hensley, 433, 1939, related avoiding burdensome satellite (the application "should result major litigation," 437, 1941), strongly against neither possible mimic intricacies fee-paying every respect. 17 18 Adopting WHITE's 715-727, 3081-3088, hold permitted reverse Appeals' insofar 19 ordered. deny principles. simply refuses draw conclusion follows ineluctably: If practices "reasonable," assumes expect additional compensation, then include compensation still qualify reasonable. decision contrary violates principles applied consistently prior seriously weaken enforcement authorized awards—notably, Nation's civil rights laws environmental laws. 20 Congress' purpose adopting strengthen selected ensuring persons enforce retain S.Rep. 94-1011, p. (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, 5908. particular, address otherwise prevent potential plaintiffs lack sufficient resources hire attorneys. H.R.Rep. 94-1558, (1976); (1976). attached typically generate small recoveries; accordingly, bringing offer share recovery justify standard arrangement. ("Delaware II"), 749, 3099, (dissenting opinion); strategy prevail, receive commensurable obtain litigation. fee-bearing less remunerative underemployed lawyers—who successful, busy shun litigation—and public who, measure, insufficiently numerous handle found. 742-743, 3095-3096 21 fee-shifting, unable ensure true precisely situations targeted statutes—where funds win-or-lose damage awards insufficient situations, unless construed associated loss, return obtained comparable offering guaranteed, compensation. Prudent counsel, conditions, tend avoid designed. competing 22 five Justices broad term fee" permit, circumstances, borrowed compute 732-733, (O'CONNOR, judgment); 735, 3091-3092 Together my allowed where, that, indicated if, able mitigate nonpayment—either full, agreeing recovery, part, arranging partial payment—then unavailable. 748-749, 3098-3099. made clear "risk" available riskiness individual considered class. 745-747, 752, 3097-3098, 3100. Congress, concluded, intend prohibit district courts considering fee.4 23 O'CONNOR's agreed "Congress foreclose consideration fee," "compensation case" Ibid. understand her O'CONNOR further determine contingent, well was, been, mitigated. Her added, market-based "not merely justifiable theory nonarbitrary practice." 732, 3090. She suggested "constraints discretion" whether, much, warranted. "district appeals treat compensates controlling future involving varying among markets reference real differences markets. demonstrating market" omitted). 24 criticizing length admits amici advocate, ante, 563-564, after rejecting 564-565, states "see[s] issue." Ante, 565. find arguments persuasive. 25 first, "[a]n cases" uses subsidize "To statute," concludes, "in effect" contravene prevailing-party limitation, allowing recover What words conceal, inattention statutes: like generally, parties, 1365(d); Respondents advocate prevailed. reliance limitation somewhat misleading: objection excessive, careful distinguish issues. 1939 "brings across threshold. remains 'reasonable.' "). 26 suggests "both 'we model'—which action—'to model.' 565-566, quoting 1682. argument plays meanings "contingency." Most assuredly, respondents—who received claims—do "mak[ing] percentage" amount. Rather, argue prevailing, assuming 27 Third, "would arbitrary" "burdensome litigation" said avoided. 566. present odd point: hardly occupied center stage portion became time-consuming matter certiorari, alone.5 increased quickly settled kinds event, speculation determinations "burdensome" speak required statutes. 28 final contention treats doomed failure. score parts. opines "for cases"—cases sought—"there 'market treatment,' "artificial" themselves. circular, "loo[k] 'market' fee-shifting." 564. leaving aside, continues, respond Because class-based system "all overcompensated" 29 Both parts mistaken. circularity overlooks unenhanced select offers disappears turns mistaken far losing explained proper addresses kind incentive: guarantee lawyer's Because, observes, "no success," 563, pure lower prospective per hour lawyer rate, win lose. Even least guaranteed wins loses economically preferable prevails, long time. Yet noted latter case—in afford straight recovery—is exactly 30 Preventing actions fully compensatory harm profession. intended serve integral mechanism variety statutes—most notably, briefs filed, or, prosecuted counsel.6 Today's weakens protections important rights. 31 dissent. 32 dissenting. continue circumstances computed purely retrospective figure, incorporate contemplating place. 731-734, 3089-3091, ) judgment). BLACKMUN cogently explains, choose cases—one lose promise successful—the client, contingency-client magnitude extra 568-569. "attract counsel," judgment), assurance dissent 34 promised shown, stand scrutiny. 574. Admittedly, called enhancements calculations less-than-perfect data. condemnation antitrust task inexactitude justifies forgoing altogether. notes, initial hurdles appeals. 573. 35 likelihood case. App. Pet. Cert. 132-133. 295 1987), asks 1360 1991) (citing Earth, supra believe determination, 3089. error degree case-specific factors. market-specific support affidavits submitted request, vacate affirming remand syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. United States Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Contrary understanding, post, 572, apply damages; obtained, relief. There be, sure, severe problems administration relief, highlight rejected whom STEVENS joins, provisions, involved fee.1 Two principles, view, "enhanced" recognized "fully 435, 1940, "calculated market." Missouri Jenkins, 274, 286, 2463, 2470, 229 prevails regardless outcome,2 professional standards practice reasonable.3 Act); (Solid Act). R. Posner, Economic Analysis Law 21.9, pp. 534-535 (3rd ed. 1986). Canons Ethics 12, A.B.A.Rep. 575, 578 (1908); Model Code Professional Responsibility, DR 2-106(B)(8) (1980); ABA Rules Conduct Rule 1.5(a)(8) bills introduced this, prohibiting "bonuses multipliers" suit States, State, government. These failed congressional approval. 739, 3, 3094, instances explicitly prohibited enhancements, 1986 amendments Education Handicapped 1415(e)(4)(C) ("[n]o bonus used subsection"). express prohibition elsewhere Cf. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. Casey, [---] [----, ---- - ----, 111 1138, 1141-1143, 113 68] (relying, authorization expert-witness subsequently passed infer included unsupplemented references "attorney's fees"). fair say petitioner's attention directed almost exclusively toward issues, petition certiorari. While sharply contested entitlement objected opposition occupies single page memorandum motion costs. 224-225. Only little 30-page devoted 25-27. Brief Lawyers' Civil Rights Amicus Curiae 16-22; Alabama Employment Lawyers Association 12-13.

Category: 5