Court Opinion

ID: 9699287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:18:13.382459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:48.551547
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
BRADLEY, Judge.
Appellant, in his application for a rehearing, points out that in the original opinion we said that he received a bonus of $59,000 in 1972 and a bonus of $76,000 in 1971. He says he did not receive bonuses from Burgess Mining and Construction Corporation during those two years.
Appellant’s income tax returns introduced into evidence show that in 1972 he received a salary of $75,000 from Burgess Mining and Construction Corporation and income in the amount of $59,561 from other sources, and in 1971 he received approx*401imately $121,000 from Burgess Mining and Construction Company, Inc. and income of about $34,000 from other sources.
In his rehearing brief appellant again argues very strenuously that he should not be required to pay the fee of an “unnecessary lawyer.” He says that either one of appellee’s lawyers was fully competent to represent her interests in this case. Therefore, he should not be required to pay for the services of more than one lawyer, whereas in the present posture of the case he is being required to pay for two lawyers. He does not, however, cite any Alabama cases as authority for his position.
We have not found any Alabama cases treating the question raised by appellant. The cases reviewed apparently were more concerned with what would be a reasonable amount of compensation for the wife’s legal counsel rather than with the number of lawyers representing her.
In the case of Davis v. Davis, 255 Ala. 488, 51 So.2d 876, it appears that the wife was represented by more than one attorney, yet the factors that had to be considered in arriving at a reasonable fee for them were the same as those that would justify a reasonable fee for a single practitioner. Cf. Stairs v. Stairs, 283 Ala. 263, 215 So.2d 591.
Consequently we must conclude that the Alabama courts are much more concerned with what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee than they are with the number of attorneys involved in the case. In other words, in arriving at a reasonable attorney’s fee for the wife’s legal counsel, the courts are to be concerned with “ . . . the labor and skill involved, the results of the litigation and the earning capacity of the parties . . . ,” rather than the number of attorneys involved in her case.
We are not convinced that the amount awarded by the trial court as attorney’s fee in this case should be altered merely because the appellee was represented by two competent lawyers rather than one competent lawyer.
Opinion extended.
Application for rehearing overruled.
WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.