Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Fee Statute

Article: Five Lessons for Recovering Attorney Fees in Texas

February 13, 2021

A recent article by Amanda G. Taylor, “Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Texas: Five Lessons” in BizLit News Blog reports on recovering attorney fees in Texas.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Obtaining an award of attorneys’ fees might be the final step in a long-waged litigation battle but to do so successfully requires careful planning and diligence from the outset of a case.  The Texas Supreme Court recently clarified the evidence required to obtain and affirm such an award.  Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019).  The Texas Supreme Court also recently confirmed that these evidentiary standards apply equally when fees are sought to be recovered as a sanction.  Nath v. Texas Children’s Hosp., 576 S.W.3d 707, 710 (Tex. 2019).  To best serve a client’s interests of recovering attorneys’ fees in Texas, whether as a prevailing party or as a sanction, lawyers should adhere to five lessons from Rohrmoos.

Lesson One:  Confirm a legal entitlement to recover fees.  “In Texas, as in the federal courts, each party must pay its own way in attorney’s fees … unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.”  Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 484.  Certain claims, such as a breach of contract claim brought under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, entitle a prevailing party to recover attorneys’ fees.  Other claims, such as a common law fraud claim, do not afford such a remedy.  In establishing your initial case strategy, it is important to consider which claims will and will not allow for recovery of fees, and advise your client about the pros and cons of pursuing each claim accordingly.  Also, be aware of fee-shifting procedural tools (such a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act) and various Texas statutes and rules that allow for recovery of fees as a sanction (such as Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapters 9-10, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215).

Lesson Two: Keep accurate, contemporaneous billing records.  Although billing records are not absolutely required to prove the amount of reasonable and necessary fees, it is “strongly encouraged” to submit such proof in support of attorneys’ fees.  Rohrmoos Venture, 578 S.W.3d at 502.  It is much easier to review, summarize, and testify about the work performed (often years later) if you have been diligent in your billing practices throughout.  Time should be kept in a manner that demonstrates the “(1) particular services performed, (2) who performed those services, (3) approximately when those services were performed, (4) the reasonable amount of time required to perform the services, and (5) the reasonable hourly rate for each person performing the services.”  Id.  It is also advisable to keep time in a manner that is specific enough to cover the topic but without legalese and without so much detail that heavy redactions become necessary.  Fact finders prefer to read invoices in plain English without the interruption of hidden text.

Lesson Three:  Your fee agreement does not control the amount awarded.  “[A] client’s agreement to a certain fee arrangement or obligation to pay a particular amount does not necessarily establish that fee as reasonable or necessary.”  Id. at 488.  Translation: even if you have agreed to handle the matter for a flat fee or contingency fee, you still must demonstrate that the amount of fees sought for recovery are reasonable and necessary based on the work performed and the time incurred.  Regardless of the fee arrangement with your client, keeping accurate and contemporaneous billing records is important.

Lesson Four: Remember to timely designate fee experts.   “Historically, claimants have proven reasonableness and necessity of attorney’s fees through an expert’s testimony—often the very attorney seeking the award.”  Id. at 490.  “[C]onclusory testimony devoid of any real substance will not support a fee award.”  Id. at 501.  Because expert testimony will be required, the attorney must remember to designate herself and any other attorney who will offer an opinion about the reasonableness and necessity of the fee amount(s) as an expert witness in compliance with the scheduling order or discovery control plan governing the case.

Lesson Five: Understand the “Texas two-step” calculation method.  At step one, calculate the “base” or “lodestar” amount by multiplying the “reasonable hours worked” by a “reasonable hourly rate.”  Id. at 498.  This is an “objective calculation” that yields a “presumptively reasonable” amount.  Id. at 497-98, 502.  The determination of what is a reasonable market rate and what is a reasonable amount of time will typically include consideration of the following factors: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill required to perform the legal service properly, (4) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services, (5) the amount involved, (6) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services, (7) whether the fee is fixed or contingent and the uncertainty of collection, and (8) the results obtained.  Id. at 500.  At step two, “adjust[] the base calculation up or down based on relevant considerations … [that were not] subsumed in the first step.”  Id.  “If a fee claimant seeks an enhancement, it must produce specific evidence showing that a higher amount is necessary to achieve a reasonable fee award.”  Id. at 501. Remember that only “rare circumstances” justify such an adjustment.  Id. at 502.

Following these five lessons from the outset of a case will be beneficial to the expert testifying about the amount of fees at the end of a case.  More importantly, it will benefit your client’s best interest in obtaining a monetary award and being able to have that award affirmed on appeal.

Amanda G. Taylor serves as Practice Group Leader of Butler Snow LLP’s Appellate Group and practices from the firm’s Austin, TX office. As a Board-Certified Civil Appellate specialist, Amanda helps to shape successful case strategy from the outset of litigation through the end of an appeal.  Amanda is a detail-oriented lawyer who represents her clients with passion, stays current on emerging trends and issues, and brings a practical perspective to problem solving.  She has a broad range of experience handling complex civil disputes regarding contracts, fraud, tax, insurance, products, employment, real property, and trust and estates.  Amanda is also committed to community service through a number of positions in her State and Local Bar Associations.

Illinois Court Weighs if Wage Law Provides for Attorney Fees

February 10, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Celeste Bott, “Court Must Weigh if Ill. Wage Law Provides For Atty Fees”, reports that an Illinois appellate court held that a former police officer isn't entitled to attorney fees under the settlement reached in his wage suit with a Chicago-area village, instructing the circuit court to consider on remand whether he can recover the fees under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Former officer David Graham contends he's entitled to attorney fees under the Illinois wage law, which provides workers can recoup fees in a successful civil action brought by "any employee not timely paid wages, final compensation, or wage supplements by his or her employer." Graham, who reached a settlement with the village of Dolton after a benefits dispute, argues that Employee Disability Act benefits constitute "wages," according to the appellate court.

The village had countered that Employee Disability Act benefits are not considered "wages" because they do not compensate employees for work "actually performed," according to the opinion.  The panel said the circuit court never addressed Graham's arguments that he is entitled to attorney fees under the Wage Payment and Collection Act, remanding with directions to consider whether he could recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to the statute.

In Illinois, each party is responsible for his own attorney fees, and the settlement agreement didn't contain a contractual fee-shifting provision that puts the village on the hook for more than $100,000 in fees and costs, the panel said.  Graham had argued that the entire agreement constituted a "contractual undertaking," and that the lower court had relied on a section of that agreement that states that the parties acknowledged he was "the prevailing party for purposes of his petition for [attorney] fees and costs," according to the opinion.

"Although this provision provides that plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of his fee petition, it does not expressly provide that the parties agreed that plaintiff, as the prevailing party, is entitled to recover attorney fees from defendant in the underlying action," the panel said.  But in the very next section of the agreement, the parties did expressly set forth which party was responsible for attorney fees if either side has to file suit for a breach of the settlement deal, the court said.

"If a party is forced to file a breach of contract action, the agreement provides that the prevailing party in that action would be entitled to reasonable attorney fees," the court said.  "Because this case is not an enforcement action, section six of the agreement does not apply."

Article: Granting Arbitrators the Power to Award Attorney Fees

January 4, 2021

A recent Legal Intelligencer article by Abraham J. Gafni, “Unintentionally Granting Arbitrators the Power to Award Attorney Fees” reports on granting the power to award attorney fees in arbitration.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

In this pandemic period, as courts are limited in their ability to conduct civil trials, parties increasingly consider whether and how to settle their disputes through arbitration.  In his article last month in the Legal Intelligencer, “How Pre-Lawsuit Demand Letters Can Undermine Arbitration” (Nov. 16, 2020), Charles Forer, through his erstwhile attorney foil Bob, explained how a party who had entered into an agreement providing for mandatory arbitration almost suffered the unintended consequence of forfeiting that right by threatening litigation in court.

Yet another area in which this “law of unintended consequences” appears to be regularly occurring these days is when a party unintentionally extends authority to the arbitrator to award attorney fees.  The general “American Rule,” of course, is that, in the absence of a contractual agreement or statutory provision, each party is responsible for its own attorney fees.  Similarly, arbitrators generally lack the authority to award attorney fees.  Nonetheless, parties often determine that it is within their interests to include a provision in the arbitration agreement allowing the arbitrators to award them.

Even when the parties have not included such authority in the arbitration agreement, however, they may unexpectedly find that through their arbitration pleadings or other actions during the arbitration proceeding, they have granted such authority and become responsible for the payment of their successful adversaries’ attorney fees.

A recent opinion of the Massachusetts Superior Court, business litigation session, reflected how a party’s own actions authorized an arbitration panel to award attorney’s fees even though the contract did not provide that authority. See Credit Suisse Securities (USA), (Credit Suisse) v. Galli, No. 2020-0709-BLS 2 (Aug. 31, 2020).  The case involved employees who were formerly employed by Credit Suisse.  They filed an arbitration demand against Credit Suisse alleging a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act (Wage Act) and related contract claims, asserting that Credit Suisse had failed to pay them earned deferred compensation.

Credit Suisse denied these allegations and filed a counterclaim claiming that the employees had breached their contracts with Credit Suisse.  Consequently, in addition to asserting a claim of millions of dollars in compensatory damages it sought “transaction costs, interest and fees.”  In closing arguments, the employees’ counsel specifically sought attorney fees, asserting that the arbitrators could award them pursuant to the Wage Act, and “because we believe that Credit Suisse, in filing their counterclaims … are requesting” not only millions of dollars in compensatory damages but also “related transaction costs and fees.”  Employees’ position was that since both parties were requesting attorney fees and costs, the arbitrators had the authority to award such fees to the successful party.

In response, in its closing arguments, Credit Suisse’s counsel stated that “we do not think there is any legal basis for an award of fees and expense in this case,” but added that if the arbitration panel were to award fees to the employees, the fee application was insufficiently itemized.  However, they did not directly contest the assertion that Credit Suisse had itself requested attorneys’ fees or that by so doing it had given the arbitrators the authority to award such fees even without a finding of a Wage Act violation.  Moreover, at no time in the proceedings, did they make clear to the arbitrators that they were withdrawing any claim for attorneys’ fees should they prevail.

The arbitration panel awarded the employees compensatory damages as well as over $100,000 in attorney fees.  Credit Suisse appealed, arguing that the panel had exceeded its powers in awarding such fees.  In considering this contention, the court noted that judicial review of an arbitral decision “is extremely narrow and exceedingly deferential.”  Among the limited bases for vacating an award under both the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 10(a)(4) and the Wage Act, however, is where the arbitrators have exceeded the scope of their arbitral authority.

Had the arbitration panel found violations of the Wage Act, the employees would have been entitled to attorney fees pursuant to that statute. The court noted, however, that it was unclear whether the findings of the panel had been based upon violations of the Wage Act.

Critically, however, the arbitration panel did not cite the Wage Act as the basis for its award of attorney fees.  Rather, according to the Massachusetts Superior Court, “the panel stated that it had the authority to award fees because each side had requested its fees.  Where the parties mutually request attorney’s fees in an arbitration, courts have concluded that this mutual request can provide the requisite legal basis for an award of fees, even though the general rule is that each party pays its own attorney fees.  This is precisely what happened here.”

In citing other cases containing a similar holding, the court noted that Rule 43(d) of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association at Rule 43(d) also authorizes the award of attorney fees where all parties have requested it.  In short, “by expressly demanding attorney’s fees and then submitting that demand (through its counterclaim) to arbitration, Credit Suisse effectively gave the arbitrators the authority they would not have otherwise had to award such fees to the prevailing party.”

The court distinguished this situation from Matter of Stewart Abori & Chang, 282 A.D. 2d 385, 723 N.Y.S. 2d 492 (App. Div. 2001), in which the court vacated the arbitrator’s award of attorney fees to the prevailing party because prior to the rendering of the award, the opposing party withdrew its claim to recover its own attorney fees and objected to the opponent’s claim for such relief. It was not deemed, therefore, to have acquiesced in the arbitrator’s consideration of that claim.

Finally, Credit Suisse sought to escape this conclusion by arguing that its counterclaim only asked for “fees,” not “attorney fees.”  This contention was also rejected by the court.  It noted that it was clear from the employees’ closing argument that the employees understood the Credit Suisse counterclaim to be seeking attorney fees and the employees’ own counsel were also seeking attorney fees, regardless of whether an award in its favor was based on a Wage Act violation.  In the face of these contentions by the employees, however, Credit Suisse was silent, neither correcting the supposed mischaracterization of its counterclaim nor making clear that Credit Suisse was not seeking attorney fees.  In addition, its only expressed opposition to the award of attorney fees was based solely on the sufficiency of the fee application submitted by the employees.

Otherwise stated, while Credit Suisse did not actively litigate the issue of its own fees, it never expressly withdrew that claim.  In addition, Credit Suisse did not dispute the employees’ assertion in closing arguments that the parties had agreed to submit the question of attorney fees for resolution by the panel.

In summary, whether arbitrators should be granted the authority to award attorney fees is an issue that must always be considered when drafting an arbitration agreement; and, of course, as the nature of any future dispute is not yet known and the incorporation of such a provision will be adopted without any knowledge of the potential financial burden that may result , counsel must always evaluate the likelihood of success in the arbitration, the relative financial situations of the parties, and the ability to bear such further expense in the event of an adverse result.

What has been further demonstrated here is that parties must remain wary of the possibility of becoming responsible for attorney fees, even when the arbitration agreement does not provide for such by making or joining in such a demand or, perhaps, by simply remaining silent and not objecting in the face of the other side’s request for attorney fees.  Unfortunately, this often occurs merely because parties wish to demonstrate that their aggressiveness and confidence match that of their adversaries.  Ignoring the potential risk of this unintended consequence, however, may result in a significant award well beyond what was contemplated by the parties when they agreed to arbitration.

Abraham J. Gafni is a retired judge and mediator/arbitrator with ADR Options.  He is also a professor of law emeritus at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law.

Article: Courts Finally Taking Unreasonable Contest Counsel Fees Seriously

November 20, 2020

A recent Law.com article by Christian Petrucci, “Courts Finally Taking Unreasonable Contest Counsel Fees Seriously,” reports on attorney fee claims in workers’ compensation cases.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Absent the legal mechanism to pursue a bad faith claim against a workers’ compensation carrier, one of the only weapons in a claimant’s arsenal to discourage the baseless denial of claims is that of the unreasonable contest counsel fee demand.  Tragically, it is commonplace for an overly aggressive defendant to deny a claim with no factual or legal basis to do so.  Claimants are routinely forced to needlessly prosecute a petition for benefits or otherwise oppose baseless defense petitions, which causes precious judicial resources to be misallocated and inflicts significant undue stress, mental anguish and financial distress on the injured worker.

Of course, the humanitarian nature of the Workers’ Compensation Act is supposed to prevent any delay in the payment of benefits or the baseless denial of claims.  The law directs that the act be liberally construed to be remedial in nature, although one would never know it from the paucity of unreasonable contest counsel fee awards at the trial level.  The actual law provides that awarding counsel fees is to be the rule and excluding fees the exception to be applied only where the factual record establishes a reasonable contest. See Millvale Sportmen’s Club v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 393 A.2d 49 (Pa. Commw.1978).  It is also important to note that the question of whether a reasonable basis exists for an employer to have contested liability is fully reviewable on appeal as a question of law to be based upon findings supported by substantial evidence.  See Kuney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 562 A.2d 931 (Pa. Commw. 1989).

The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act provides in pertinent part: In any contested case where the insurer has contested liability in whole or in part … the employee, or his dependent, as the case may be, in whose favor the matter at issue has been finally determined in whole or in part shall be awarded, in addition to the award for compensation, a reasonable sum for costs incurred for attorney fee, witnesses, necessary medical examination, and the value of unreimbursed lost time to attend the proceedings: Provided, That cost for attorney fees may be excluded when a reasonable basis for the contest has been established by the employer or the insurer.

Despite the plain reading of the statue, unreasonable contest attorneys fees are almost never awarded and even in the most egregious situations, are awarded in a nominal amount which is stayed pending appeal in every instance.

Given this background, Gabriel v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Procter and Gamble Products), decided by the Commonwealth Court in September, offers significant hope that the tide will be turning in the effort to police instances of bad faith in the workers’ compensation world.  At a minimum, Gabriel affords a heightened expectation that an attorney can be compensated in cases which lack a wage-loss benefit award, which is the normal corpus on which contingency fees are based.

In Gabriel, the claimant injured his arm at work and notified his employer.  The claimant treated with doctors based at the company’s plant and the employer’s insurance carrier actually paid medical expenses associated with the claim.  However, the employer inexplicably failed to file a bureau document either accepting or denying the claim within 21 days, as required by the act.  Consequently, the injured worker was forced to retain an attorney and file a claim petition, which was summarily denied by the employer.

Before the WCJ, both parties presented evidence over the course of a number of hearings and the record was eventually closed.  Perhaps sensing what was about to happen, the employer finally issued a medical only notice of compensation payable toward the end of the litigation.  The filing date was more than two years after the date of injury.

The WCJ granted the claim petition, but as is normally the case consistent with the above background, did not award unreasonable contest counsel fees or grant a penalty for failure to file a bureau document within 21 days as required by law.  The WCJ reasoned that the employer “was paying the claimant’s medical bills,” and “it was not until the last hearing in this matter that the claimant produced any medical evidence establishing a specific diagnosis for his work injury other than a puncture wound.”

The claimant appealed the denial of attorney fees and penalties, but the board affirmed the WCJ’s decision.  The board held that the WCJ did not err or abuse his discretion in not awarding a penalty or attorney fees since although the employer paid for the claimant’s medical  expenses, doing so is not an admission of liability.  The board also found that the claimant was seeking a description of injury different than what was listed on the NCP.

Following the board decision, the claimant petitioned for review by the Commonwealth Court.  The court reversed the decisions of the WCJ and the board, finding that the employer presented an unreasonable contest in defending the claim petition because it had, in fact, violated the act by failing to timely issue a bureau document.  The court also noted that the employer denied all allegations in the claim petition, including ones it knew to be true, forcing the claimant to commence needless litigation.  Moreover, the employer did not  present any evidence to contest the claim petition.  Had the employer filed a bureau document timely, the claim petition would have had to be filed.

Similarly, the court found a penalty award to be appropriate, since the employer violated the act when it did not timely issue the medical only NCP as required under Section 406.1(a) of the act, thus forcing the claimant to hire an attorney, produce evidence of the injury of which it had notice, and hire an expert to review the medical records of the employer’s own company doctors who had treated him.  The act was intended to avoid this.

As a practice tip, it is vital that claimants’ attorneys zealously demand the imposition of unreasonable contest counsel fees in almost every case.  Until insurance companies actually begin to risk the forfeiture of entire counsel fee awards during the pendency of a two-year petition, they will continue to have little incentive to voluntarily accept claims that have no defense but are denied anyway for a variety if bogus reasons.  Gabriel demonstrates that a new day may have arrived in this battle.

Christian Petrucci of the Law Offices of Christian Petrucci, concentrates his practice in the areas of workers’ compensation and Social Security disability.  He also counsels injured workers in matters involving employment discrimination and unemployment compensation benefits.

Florida High Court Considers Attorney Fee Calculation in Settlement Law

October 7, 2020

A recent Law 360 story by Carolina Bolado, “Fla. High Court Weights Atty Fee Calculation in Settlement Law,” reports that a condominium association that won a legal battle with a pest control company asked the Florida Supreme Court to buck precedent and include prejudgment interest when determining if a judgment triggers a party's entitlement to attorney fees under the state's proposal-for-settlement statute.

In videoconferenced oral arguments, CCM Condominium Association Inc. attorney Shea Moxon told the high court that prejudgment interest accrued after the association made a settlement offer to Petri Positive Pest Control Inc. should be included in the "net judgment" for the purposes of calculating whether it can be awarded attorney fees under the statute.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that this interest should not be included in the judgment, but the appeals court said it based its decision on language in Florida Supreme Court precedent, even though it would reach the opposite conclusion based on its own interpretation of the term "judgment entered" in the offer-of-judgment statute, found in Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes.

Those previous opinions, particularly the 2002 decision in White v. Steak & Ale of Florida, have "turned into a judicial rewriting of the statute," according to Moxon.  "There is nothing in the statute that suggests 'net' is going to be referring to a deduction of costs or prejudgment interest," Moxon said.  "Net judgment means the real judgment, the judgment entered at the end of the case."

The appeal arose from a 2013 lawsuit that CCM, which does business as Country Club Manor Condominium Association, filed against Petri for negligence and breach of contract after Petri tented the complex for termites.  CCM offered to settle all of its claims for $500,000, but Petri rejected the offer, according to court documents.  At trial in November 2016, a jury awarded CCM $551,881 in damages.  The trial court entered a judgment of $636,327, which included the jury's damages award plus $84,446 in prejudgment interest.

CCM then moved to recover attorney fees based on that figure, which exceeded its settlement offer by more than 25%, the statutory threshold to trigger its entitlement to attorney fees.  Petri objected, pointing to the 2002 White decision, which it said defined the plaintiff's total recovery as including only attorney fees, costs and prejudgment interest accrued up to the date of its settlement offer. That would push CCM's recovery below the 25% threshold.

But the trial court disagreed and awarded CCM $73,579 in post-offer attorney fees and costs.  At oral arguments, Petri's attorney, Thomas Hunker, said the formula that the Supreme Court set out in the White case is the "backbone for how this statute has worked for the last 18 years" and is an important tool.

It is unfair and unreasonable, he said, to impose upon a party potential sanctions for failing to predict how long a case will take or what the interest rate, which fluctuates with the market, will be in the months or years after an offer of settlement.  "But the problem is we have to apply the statute, not ourselves determine what's fair, do we not?" asked Justice Ricky Polston.