Court Opinion

ID: 9619561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:29:43.921259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:42.291121
License: Public Domain

Andree Layton Roaf, Judge, dissenting. I do not agree that this case should be reversed. Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 states that a lawyer’s fee shall be reasonable. The rule also lists factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the fee. Ark. R. Professional Conduct 1.5(a). The factors include: (1) time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the question involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. Regarding guardianship cases, our case law also provides that in determining what is a reasonable attorney’s fee, it is proper to consider the amount and character of the services rendered, the labor, time, and trouble involved, the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services were rendered, the amount or value of the property involved in the employment, the skill or experience called for in the performance of the services, and the professional character and standing of the attorney. See Johnson v. Guardianship of Ratcliff, 72 Ark. App. 85, 34 S.W.3d 749 (2000). The value of legal services and the determination of whether to increase or decrease a fee award is primarily a factual one, which will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous, and the trial court is in the best position to determine the value of legal services and to award a proper fee. Id. A personal representative may employ legal counsel in connection with the probate of a will, and the attorney shall prepare and present to the circuit court all necessary notices, petitions, orders, and all necessary legal instruments. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-108(d)(l) (Repl. 2004). For the legal services performed, the attorney, unless otherwise contracted with the personal representative, heirs, and beneficiaries of the estate, shall be allowed a reasonable fee based on the total market value of the real and personal property reportable in the circuit court based on the schedule of fees outlined in subsection (d)(2) of section 28-48-108. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-108(d)(2) (Repl. 2004). If the trial court determines that the schedule of fees set out in subsection (d) (2) is excessive or insufficient, under the circumstances, then the trial court shall allow an attorney fee commensurate with the value of the legal services rendered. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-108 (d)(3); see also Nabers v. Estate of Setser, 310 Ark. 194, 833 S.W.2d 375 (1992) (stating that § 28-48-108 authorizes the trial court to increase or decrease fees in accordance with the value of legal services performed rendered). With these principles in mind, I cannot agree that the authority relied upon by the majority, Bailey v. Rahe, 355 Ark. 560, 142 S.W.3d 634 (2004), compels reversal of this case. In Bailey, the supreme court stated that it was unable to discern the basis for the trial court’s decision to reduce the attorney’s fees requested. The court stated that “[Cjlearly, the trial court did not consider or allude to either the Jones factors or the Chrisco factors....” Id. at 566. The court held that because the trial court failed to consider the Chrisco factors, the case would be reversed and remanded for the trial court to make such an analysis. Here, the trial court’s order expressly references Rule 1.5 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct in reaching the fee decision, which sets forth factors similar if not more extensive than those listed by the court in Chrisco. More importantly, the majority has interpreted Bailey as requiring that a trial court, on its own motion, make specific findings of fact on the record with regard to the Chrisco factors when determining the amount of the fee to be awarded. Although the dissent in Bailey warns of such an outcome, I can find no such holding in the Bailey majority opinion. The decision clearly requires only that the trial court consider such factors. I cannot say that the trial court erred in this instance, where it expressly considered the appropriate factors in setting the fee, and where there was no further request by the appellant for specific findings of fact. I would affirm. Crabtree, J., joins.