Court Opinion

ID: 9557545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:52:10.411183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:57.752795
License: Public Domain

HASELTON, J.,
concurring.
I concur separately to emphasize some concerns that I have with the presentation of attorney-fee petitions, not only in this case, but also in many petitions that I review as a member of the court’s motions department. I emphasize that what follows is not a criticism of the able counsel in this case. *280It is, instead, a “crie de coeur” — a general plea for more precise and enlightening proof of “reasonableness” when we are asked to award substantial attorney fees on appeal.
In reviewing petitions for appellate attorney fees under ORAJP 13.10, we function much like a trial court, at least with respect to issues of reasonableness. We receive evidence and, after considering the evidence, fix a fee. Just as trial courts benefit from expert opinions as to the reasonableness of fees, so do we. Just as trial courts are enlightened by particularized objections to fee petitions, so are we.
Far too often, appellate counsel who have rigorously briefed the substantive merits of a case offer only conclusory and patently self-interested submissions on attorney fees. That is perfectly acceptable — indeed understandable as a cost/benefit matter — where the fees requested are relatively low or reasonableness is not disputed. But where significant fees are sought and reasonableness is disputed, boilerplate submissions are self-defeating.
In cases where the parties’ evidence of reasonableness consists solely of opposing counsels’ contending representations as to their own, or their adversaries’, worth, the court is thrown back onto its own resources. That is not exactly “flying blind”; lacking submissions by disinterested appellate practitioner experts, we do the best that we can, in as principled a fashion as we can. Ultimately, however, in determining reasonableness, we are forced to make a call based on our assessment of the diversity, complexity, and difficulty of the issues presented, our “eyeballing” of the work product, and our own experience as practicing attorneys (however dated) and on the bench.
Thus, our award in this case. An award that is the product of our best judgment and collective experience, but one that may seem arbitrary. The lesson: Where there is “real” money at stake and reasonableness is disputed, help us out. Everyone will benefit.