Court Opinion

ID: 9677974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:07:33.739189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:00.792787
License: Public Domain

STUMBO, Justice,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
Although I agree with the legal reasoning of the majority opinion, I disagree with the result it reaches and therefore must dissent in part. I agree with that much of the majority’s analysis which interprets the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS 367.220(3) as authorizing, but not requiring, the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a suit brought pursuant to the Act. However, I believe the trial courts in both cases herein failed to thoroughly consider all relevant factors when considering the plaintiffs’ requests for attorney fees, and, consequently, them denial of attorney fees was an abuse of discretion. I believe Judge Knox’s opinion for the Court of Appeals in the Childers case articulately and thoroughly sets forth the factors a trial court should consider when considering a request for attorney fees under the KCPA:
[T]he intent of [KRS 367.220(3) ] is analogous to KRS 344.450 which provides for the allowance of attorney fees and costs arising from a successful prosecution for a violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, KRS 344.010 et seq. In this regard, Meyers v. Chapman Printing *307Co., Inc., Ky., 840 S.W.2d 814 (1992) remains the seminal ease regarding the calculation of reasonable attorney fees as permitted by KRS 344.450.
[[Image here]]
[In Meyers, the Kentucky Supreme Court stated] that “the court should not undertake to adopt some arbitrary proportionate relationship between the amount of attorney fees awarded and the amount of damages awarded.” Meyers, 840 S.W.2d at 825-26. We believe identical reasoning is applicable under the KCPA.
With respect to civil rights grievances, the accepted method of calculating attorney fees is that set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), as adopted by the Meyers Court. The Hensley/Meyers analysis provides that attorney fees should be ascertained by multiplying counsel’s reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate to produce a “lodestar” figure. This lodestar figure may then be adjusted to account for any special factors particular to the individual litigation. Meyers, 840 S.W.2d at 826.
Special factors the court will want to consider in making any adjustment to the lodestar figure include: (1) amount and character of services rendered; (2) labor, time and trouble involved; (3) nature and importance of the litigation in which the services were rendered; (4) responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money or value of the property affected by the controversy, or involved in the employment; (6) skill and professional character and standing of the attorneys; and, (8) the results secured. Boden v. Boden, Ky., 268 S.W.2d 632, 633 (1954) (citing Axton v. Vance, 207 Ky. 580, 269 S.W. 534 (1925)). These factors have long been regarded as applicable through the decisional law of Kentucky. Commonwealth v. Lavit, Ky., 882 . S.W.2d 678, 680 (1994) (calculation of fees for private attorney who acted as public defender); Daniels v. May, Ky., 467 S.W.2d 372, 374 (1971) (attorney fees allowed for services rendered in civil litigation extending over four years); Itschner v. Itschner, Ky., 455 S.W.2d 54, 56 (1970) (award of attorney fees in dissolution action); Stubblefield v. Stubblefield, Ky., 327 S.W.2d 24, 26 (1959) (same); Brown v. Fulton, Hubbard & Hubbard, Ky.App., 817 S.W.2d 899, 901 (1991) (attorney fee charged for defending client against criminal charges); Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. v. Harvin, Ky.App., 550 S.W.2d 569, 570 (1977) (award of attorney fee for sale of real estate that was subject of action for specific performance).
In my opinion, considering all the proper factors set forth by Judge Knox, and given the services rendered by both plaintiff attorneys and the results realized from said services, the trial courts below should reconsider their refusal to award attorney fees. The trial courts’ failure to allow any fee for time spent actually litigating the case and all hourly services leading up thereto is inconsistent with the finding (implicit in Alexander, explicit in Childers) that the jury’s award of both compensatory and punitive damages was supported by the evidence and not the result of passion or prejudice, and that the amount of the compensatory and punitive damages were not excessive. Thus, in my view, the trial courts below either abused their discretion or failed to use it at all. I therefore would remand both cases to the trial courts for reconsideration of the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees in view of all the relevant factors set forth above.
GRAVES and KELLER, JJ., join.