Legal Document

489 U.S. 87 109 S.Ct. 939 103 L.Ed.2d 67 Arthur J. BLANCHARD, Petitionerv.James BERGERON et al. No. 87-1485. Argued Nov. 28, 1988. Decided Feb. 21, 1989. Syllabus After a jury awarded petitioner $10,000 in damages on his claim that respondent sheriff's deputy had beaten him and thereby deprived of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal District Court $7,500 attorney's fees 1988, which provides court, "in its discretion, may allow . reasonable fee" to prevailing party certain federal actions, including those 1983. The Appeals reduced fee award $4,000, ruling petitioner's 40% contingent-fee arrangement with lawyer served as cap amount could be awarded. court also found hours billed for time law clerks paralegals were not compensable since they would included within contingency fee. Held: 1. An allowed 1988 is limited provided plaintiff's counsel. To hold otherwise inconsistent statute, broadly requires all defendants pay plaintiffs if ordered do so by acting sound judgment light circumstances case. This Court's decisions have required initial estimate court-awarded calculated multiplying billing rates reasonably expended successful claims, "lodestar" figure then adjusted other factors. has never suggested any one such factor should substitute lodestar approach. In fact, entitled strong presumption reasonableness prevents "windfall" attorneys 1983 actions guaranteeing receive only worth services rendered. Thus, 1988's legislative history confirms, private but many factors considered cannot, standing alone, impose an automatic limitation exercise trial judge's central operation statute. Moreover, might place undesirable emphasis importance recovery damages, whereas makes no distinction between equitable suits was intended encourage meritorious irrespective their nature, because benefits litigation named plaintiff society at large. Fee awards cases modeled upon arrangements used personal injury litigation, individual plaintiff. Pp. 91-96. 2. Since erred controlled arrangement, it must consider determination total remand. P. 97. 831 F.2d 563 (CA5 1987), reversed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed concurring part judgment, post, p. William W. Rosen, New Orleans, La., petitioner. Edmond L. Guidry, III, St. Martinville, respondents. Justice WHITE Court. 1 issue before us whether entered into 2 * Petitioner Blanchard brought suit United States Western Louisiana alleging violations asserted he Sheriff's Deputy James Bergeron while Oudrey's Odyssey Lounge. against deputy, sheriff, Martin Parish Department. He joined state-law negligence above owners manager lounge itself. case tried compensatory $5,000 punitive claim. Under provisions permit actions,1 sought costs totaling more than $40,000. after reviewing cost records furnished counsel, $886.92 expenses.2 3 appealed this Fifth Circuit, seeking increase award. Appeals, however, lawyer,3 attorney prevail suit. While recognizing Circuits different views, held bound prior decision Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 714, 718 (1974), rule contingency-fee agreement "serves awarded." 563, 564 1987). further Ibid. Accordingly, award—$4,000. 4 Because Courts concluded client,4 we granted certiorari resolve conflict, 487 1217, 108 2869, 101 904 (1988). We now reverse. II 5 Section ." section does provide specific definition "reasonable" fee, question agreement. Act instructive insofar tells us: "In computing counsel parties paid, traditional compensated fee-paying client, 'for matter.' " S.Rep. 94-1011, 6 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, 5913 (citing Davis County Los Angeles, 8 EPD ¶ 9444 (CD Cal.1974); Stanford Daily Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680, 684 (ND Cal.1974)). past considering turned our attention supra, decided enactment Civil Rights Attorney's Award 1976. As stated Hensley Eckerhart, 461 424, 429-431, 1933, 1938, 76 40 (1983), guidance Congress' intent both House Senate Reports refer 12 set forth assessing award.5 Report, particular, refers three "correctly applied" laid out Johnson.6 7 course discussion awarding fees, dealt arrangements: 'Whether or [a litigant] agreed what decisive. Conceivably, litigant agree fixed dollar even eventually court. Or percentage contingent greater ultimately set. Such determine court's decision. criterion reasonable.' F.2d, (quoting Clark American Marine Corp., 320 F.Supp. 709, 711 (ED La.1970), aff'd 437 959 1971)). 9 Yet next sentence, says event, contractually pay, indeed contracted amount." 718. latter statement, disowned basis below. But doubt Congress embraced aspect Johnson, pointed are applied." Those clarify single determinative. 680 Cal.1974), aff'd, 550 464 (CA9 1977), rev'd grounds, 436 547, 98 1970, 56 525 (1978), example, factor, dispositive, calculation permitted public interest firm been Finally, Swann Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Education, 66 483 (WDNC 1975), regardless obligations. Johnson's "list 12" thus useful catalog fees; here, dispositive. 10 simply that, factor. presence pre-existing aid determining reasonableness. 'The quoted client helpful demonstrating expectations when accepted case.' Pennsylvania Delaware Valley Citizens' Council Clean Air, 711, 723, 107 3078, 3085, 97 585 (1987) quoting see it, contract ceiling statute policy purpose. 11 understand provision allowing "reasonable fee," contemplates compensation, circumstances, effort plaintiff, less. Should less manner, defendant nevertheless higher amount. not, called usual way. It true purpose make sure competent available plaintiffs, arguable able secure agreement, contract. On basis, recover nothing from defendant, plainly contrary And implemented requiring Thus will Plaintiffs who can afford hire own lawyers, well impecunious litigants, take advantage provision. where there lawyers organizations without fact bar All consistent reflects involving fees. directed lower courts applying claims. said repeatedly "[t]he properly number times hourly rate." Blum Stenson, 465 886, 888, 104 1541, 1544, 79 891 (1984). adjust approach followed (or her) executed contrary, subsequent cases, adopted centerpiece awards. relevant adjusting amount, estimation litigation. Blum, rejected, congressional intent, notion cost-based standard. Further, "Congress did intend vary depending represented nonprofit legal organization." U.S., 894, S.Ct., 1547. That organization charge preclude action, 13 clear "intended governed same standards types equally complex involved non-pecuniary nature." 6, 5913. "The ensure 'effective access judicial process' persons grievances." Hensley, 429, 1937, H.R.Rep. 94-1558, (1976). Even Air Act, 7401 seq., applied approach, stating: "A product rate—represents 'reasonable fee' wholly rationale behind fee-shifting 478 546, 565, 106 3088, 3098, 92 439 (1986). 14 If govern strict placed intention create special incentive prove shortchange efforts seek effective injunctive declaratory relief. Affirming below artificial disincentive enters unsure client's sounded state tort rights, fully exploring possible avenues elected claims large, action seeks monetary damages. 15 noted contention "[W]e reject constitutes benefiting whose violated. Unlike most vindicate important constitutional cannot valued solely terms." Riverside Rivera, 477 561, 574, 2686, 2694, 91 466 16 Respondent cautions refusing limit result accept actions. very nature designed prevent "windfall." reasonable, spent advancing awards, calculated, represent rendered vindication district judge, her good assessment judge contractual 17 model, premised representing inappropriate recoverable reverse III 18 complains failure compensation clerks. addressed separate assistants. "[A]ny 'billed' naturally fee." 564. today control reserve another day assistants' 19 reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. 20 So ordered. 21 judgment. 22 I concur join except portion rests detailed analysis Circuit's 714 1975); Cal.1974). See ante, 93-93. carefully examines opinions, separating holding dictum, much study opinions order faithful guidance. justification role reversal Committee Fees Awards 1976 referred approvingly Report alone having Johnson. resolves difficulty contradicts precise point here concluding effect inJohnson holding. Despite made mention "doubt[s] 'correctly applied.' Ante, 92. 23 my view thing. enact statutes rather Members better uses poring over opinions. citation document issued committee house displays level unreality unrestrained use attained. am confident small proportion read either question, (as always case) happened published vote; few them off nearest library check actually four 50 cited Reports); Member came trump dictum. anyone familiar modern-day drafting reports aware, references inserted, best staff member initiative, worst suggestion lawyer-lobbyist; primarily inform bill meant (for end merely cited, described, not), influence construction. What heady feeling young staffer, know obscure transform land, thereafter dutifully observed Supreme 24 decline participate process. neither compatible responsibility assuring reasoned, consistent, application States, nor conducive genuine effectuation give force each snippet analysis, every citation, increasingly unreliable evidence voting mind. By treating trilogy authoritative, expands regard cases' excessive preoccupation them—and 12-factor particular. See, e.g., 893-896, 900, 1546-1547, 1549, (1984); 429-432, 434-435, 1937-1938, 1939-1940, (1983). expansion puzzling thought first case, (1986), acknowledged emancipation 563-565, 3097-3098. Indeed, plurality second 723-724, 3085-3086, (Delaware ), discussed almost exclusively way refuting arguments reliance BRENNAN's 902-903, 1550-1551. formed fifth vote discuss all. 731-734, 3089-3091 (O'CONNOR, judgment). Except passages object, today's admirably follows recent develop interpretation apparent purpose, achieve obedient adherence reports. therefore balance Pub.L. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641, states: ". proceeding enforce sections 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986 title, title IX Public Law 92-318, VI 1964, party, costs." states discretion" discretion limit: "should ordinarily unless render unjust." Newman Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 400, 402, 88 964, 966, 1263 (1968); guidelines announced starting multiplied Id., 433, 1939. went say exclude 'reasonably expended' 434, 1939, pp. 5908, determined Blanchard, party. Then, arrive deemed rate. based considerations "the elemental entered." App. Pet. Cert. 14A (ruling Action 83-0755, Oct. 23, 1986; Record 363, 370). $9,720 downward $7,500. express rate work correctly characterized "elemental." Blanchard's original complaint March 29, Charles Pisano. June 11, 1984, motion substituting Rosen Cooper Singer, 719 1496, 1507 (CA10 1983); Lusby T.G. Y. Stores, 749 1423 1984), cert. denied, 474 818, 65, 53 (1985); Sisco J.S. Alberici Constr. Co., 733 55, (CA8 1984); Sanchez Schwartz, 688 503, 505 (CA7 1982). Circuit Pharr Housing Authority Prichard, 704 1216 (CA11 1983). 706(k) Title VII 2000e-5(k) are: (1) labor required; (2) novelty questions; (3) skill requisite perform service properly; (4) preclusion employment due acceptance case; (5) customary fee; (6) contingent; (7) limitations imposed circumstances; (8) results obtained; (9) experience, reputation, ability attorneys; (10) "undesirability" (11) length professional relationship client; (12) similar cases. 717-719. appropriate standards, (5th Cir.1974), (N.D.Cal.1974); E.P.D. (C.D.Cal.1974); (W.D.N.C.1975). These resulted adequate attract produce windfalls attorneys."

Classification Label: 5