Court Opinion

ID: 9463028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:56:30.0491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:54.280128
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring):
I join the court’s opinion, and write separately only to call attention to a problem to be confronted on remand.
An important factor in fixing an attorney’s fee is the quantum of benefit conferred on the stockholders.1 The able trial judge has already expressed his view that the benefit here was nonexistent, since the dividend was merely “coincidental.” Although we reverse that finding as not supported by the record, the expressed belief that this lawsuit did not aid the stockholders may well give the appearance, if not the reality, of influencing the exercise of discretion in fixing a fee.2 Accordingly, the trial judge would be well advised to consider transferring the matter to another judge. See United States v. Parker, 447 F.2d 826, 829 n. 4 (7 Cir. 1971) (Stevens, J.).
Some courts, by rule or practice, have wisely sought to remove any possible unintended connotations of personal criticism by making such transfers more or less routine.3

. See Ratner v. Bakery & Confectionary Workers, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 372, 354 F.2d 504, 506 (1965); Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel, 164 U.S. App.D.C. 86, 503 F.2d 177, 185-87 (1974); cf. Treves v. Servel, Inc., 38 Del.Ch. 483, 154 A.2d 188 (1959) (“nominal” fee proper where suit merely caused “slight speeding up” of dividends).

. The “appearance of justice” rule applies even though the trial judge has “no actual bias and would do [his] very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties.” See In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13, 99 L.Ed. 11, 13 (1954).

. See Seventh Circuit Local Rule 23, 28 U.S. C.A. See also United States v. Bryan, 393 F.2d 90 (2 Cir. 1968).