Court Opinion

ID: 9688782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:05:02.536176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.253483
License: Public Domain

Neff, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached in this case but write separately to express a disagreement with the reasoning expressed in that part of the majority opinion that addresses the enhancement of attorney fees under 42 USC 1988. The majority opinion, in my view, places too much emphasis on the oral statements of the trial court and inadequate emphasis on its written order. A court speaks through its written orders and, *684accordingly, it is my opinion that the emphasis should be reversed. Tiedman v Tiedman, 400 Mich 571, 576; 255 NW2d 632 (1977); Boggerty v Wilson, 160 Mich App 514, 530; 408 NW2d 809 (1987). Moreover, I believe that the reasons expressed in the written order are valid, and this should be reflected in the opinion.
i
The text of the order appealed from regarding the enhancement of fees requested by plaintiffs under 42 USC 1988 reads as follows:
A. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have prevailed on nearly every significant issue in this case and have recovered a substantial monetary judgment for their damages and have also been granted a permanent injunction.
B. The Court further finds that the case involved important constitutional rights, including the rights of free speech, free assembly, right to petition government, the right to equal protection of the laws, and the right to be free from sex and race discrimination. The Plaintiffs have prevailed and have vindicated all of these important constitutional rights.
C. The Court finds that the fees being awarded by the Court are fair and reasonable and that they are in an amount necessary to attract competent counsel to handle cases such as this case. The Court notes that since the State was a Defendant in this case, it was clear from the beginning that the case would be vigorously defended by competent counsel and by Defendants with substantial assets for defense. The Court also notes that in this case, valuable, but intangible, constitutional rights were at stake and there was no obvious out-of-pocket loss or physical injuries to the Plaintiffs. In such cases it is often difficult to find competent counsel to take the Plaintiffs’ case on a contingent *685fee basis because there is no certainty or even probability of a large damage verdict.
D. The Court also finds that there was a very real risk that the Plaintiffs would not prevail in this case because the Defendants insisted that they acted in good faith; that they acted in respect to these Plaintiffs as they acted to all other visitors to the prison; and that the law required them to report all lein hits to the police agencies. It was only after a trial on the merits that it was clear that the facts and the law did not support the Defendants’ positions.
E. The Court also finds that in order to attract competent counsel to handle Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims of the type involved in this case, an enhancement of normal hourly rates is necessary to compensate for the risk of nonrecovery and for the delay in payment. In many areas of the law, the enhancement of normal hourly rates awarded by the marketplace in contingent fee cases is 100 percent or greater. The Court finds that the enhancement awarded by the Court in this case is fully justified and necessary to assure the availability of competent counsel.
F. The Court finds that the hours of service reflected on the detailed bill provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel are well documented and reasonable. The Court also finds that the hourly rates requested by Plaintiffs’ attorney and awarded by .the Court are reasonable.
The order clearly shows that the trial court focused on more than "the risky nature of this specific case.” In fact, the court’s emphasis was more on the fact that this was a contingent fee case. In Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Pennsylvania v Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 US 711; 107 S Ct 3078; 97 L Ed 2d 585 (1987), heavily relied upon in the majority opinion, Justice O’Connor concurred with the four dissenters in holding that compensation for this factor, *686i.e., that the plaintiffs counsel accepted the case on a contingent fee basis, is proper in determining whether enhancement is appropriate. It should be noted that there was no majority opinion in Delaware Valley, supra, and that its holding is limited to its facts.
ii
I agree with the majority that the trial court may have taken into consideration impermissible factors and that remand for reconsideration of this issue is justified. However, I would hold that it is not impermissible to consider the contingency fee issue as the trial court did in the order appealed from.