Court Opinion

ID: 9770608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:11:41.961351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:18.780324
License: Public Domain

GREEN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Teresa Hunter a guardian ad litem fee in the amount of $150,000 in this ease. The award is clearly excessive under these facts. But because I believe the amount of the remitti-tur suggested by the majority is insufficient, I respectfully dissent.
The factors to be used in determining the reasonableness of guardian ad litem fees are the same factors used in determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees. Alford v. Whaley, 794 S.W.2d 920, 925 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ). These factors are:
(1) the time and labor involved;
(2) the nature and complexities of the case;
(3) the amount of money or the value of the property or interest involved;
(4) the extent of the responsibilities assumed by the attorney;
(5) whether other employment is lost by the attorney because of the undertaking;
(6) the benefits resulting to the client from the services;
(7) the contingency or certainty of compensation; and
(8) whether the employment is casual or for an established or constant client.

Id.

Moreover, in reviewing the reasonableness of an ad litem fee awarded by the trial court, it has been held that “an appellate court has the authority in looking at the entire record to draw on the common knowledge of the justices of the court and their experience as lawyers and judges to view the matter in *152light of the testimony, the record, and the amount in controversy.” Id.
Accordingly, after reviewing the evidence of Teresa Hunter’s activities in this case in light of the above enumerated factors, and drawing upon my common knowledge and experiences as a lawyer with seventeen years of practice in the area of personal injury law before joining this court, it is my considered opinion that a fee of $150,000 — or even the $105,000 amount suggested by the majority — is patently and grossly excessive and unreasonable. An ad litem fee of that size cannot reasonably be defended under these facts.
An ad litem’s sole duty is to protect the interests of a legally incompetent client against the potential or actual conflicting interests of other parties who may represent the incompetent in other capacities. For the proper discharge of that duty, the ad litem is entitled to a reasonable fee, regardless of the outcome of the case. See Tex.R. Crv. P. 178. And since a guardian ad litem does not undertake the risk of an unsuccessful outcome, the ad litem is not ordinarily entitled to a fee based upon risk. Cf. Dalworth Trucking Co. v. Bulen, 924 S.W.2d 728, 738 (Tex.App.— Texarkana, no writ) (ad litem fee based on percentage of recovery improper unless authorized by order appointing ad litem).
Upon consideration of all the factors to be considered in determining whether a fee is reasonable, and again drawing upon my experience and common knowledge, it is my view that an hourly fee rate of $150 fairly encompasses those factors in this case. See Alford v. Whaley, 794 S.W.2d at 926. But in arriving at a reasonable ad litem fee we should not simply apply the $150 per hour fee rate to the 300 hours Ms. Hunter says she worked. The question of whether a fee is reasonable is determined not only by the amount of the hourly rate, but by the number of hours charged. It is possible to work a file more than can reasonably be charged to a client. And in this case, it is my opinion that 300 hours is much more time than can be reasonably justified by an ad litem with Ms. Hunter’s limited responsibilities. In the words of Justice Bissett, if Ms. Hunter spent 300 hours preparing this case, “then [she] overprepared the case, and appellants should not be held hable for attorney’s fees due to overpreparing.” See Giles v. Cardenas, 697 S.W.2d 422, 430 (Tex.App.— San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In my view, 150 hours of preparation and trial time is much more reasonable under the circumstances and would allow for adequate representation of her client.
I would sustain appellant’s point of error and suggest a remittitur in the amount of $127,500 to reduce the ad litem fee to the more reasonable sum of $22,500. In the absence of a remittitur filed by Ms. Hunter in the amount suggested, I would reverse and remand the issue to the trial court for a redetermination of a reasonable ad litem fee.
ORDER
On December 31,1996 this court issued its opinion finding insufficient evidence to support the award of guardian ad litem fees in the amount of $150,000.00. The court found the fee excessive by $45,000.00, and thus suggested a remittitur in the amount of $45,-000.00. Judgment was issued that the judgment of the trial court would be affirmed as reformed (to include an ad litem award of $105,000.00) if appellee tendered a remittitur of $45,000.00 within fifteen days. On January 14, 1997, appellee, Gilbert Vela Alderete, Individually and as Next Friend of Gilbert Issac Alderete, a minor, and Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., filed the suggested re-mittitur of $45,000.00.
Accordingly, it is THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment of December 31, 1996 be and is hereby withdrawn. A new judgment bearing today’s date is hereby substituted in its stead.
JUDGMENT
Before STONE and GREEN, JJ., and CHAPA, C.J. (retired) 1
The judgment of December 31, 1996, is withdrawn, and this judgment is substituted in its stead. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of December 31, 1996, the judgment *153of the trial court is AFFIRMED as REFORMED.
This Court, having found insufficient evidence to support Teresa Hunter’s ad litem award in the amount of $150,000, suggested a REMITTITUR in the amount of $45,000. Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 85(e), if Teresa Hunter filed a remittitur within fifteen (15) days after the date of said opinion, the judgment of the trial court would be REFORMED and AFFIRMED. If Teresa Hunter did not file such a remittitur within said period of time, the judgment as to Teresa Hunter would be REVERSED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court for a new trial. On January 14, 1997, Teresa Hunter complied with said opinion and filed a remittitur with this Court in the amount of $45,000. Due to Teresa Hunter’s compliance with this Court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED as REFORMED to reflect an ad litem award to Teresa Hunter in the amount of $105,000.
Each party is taxed one half of the costs of this appeal. After all costs have been paid, the clerk of the district court is directed to release the full amount of the cash deposit in lieu of cost bond to Robert B. Burns, Jr. as attorney for appellants, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company d/b/a Union Pacific Railroad Company and Randy Issenock.