A recent Texas Lawyer story by John Council, “5th Circuit ‘Stunned’ Over $130,000 Fee Request by 2 Texas Lawyers in $1,000 FDCPA Case, Awards Them Zero,” reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has slammed two Texas lawyers and their client in a recent decision, writing that it was “stunned” by the trio’s $130,000 attorney fee request in connection with a $1,000 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act award concerning a $107.29 unpaid water bill.
According to the decision in Davis v. Credit Bureau of the South, Crystal Davis filed the suit in an Eastern District of Texas federal court, alleging that the debt collection agency had violated the federal debt collection law, with its fee-shifting provision, in contacting her over the water bill because it has misrepresented itself as a “credit bureau,” which it isn’t.
A U.S. magistrate judge later ruled in Davis’ favor, awarding her $1,000 in statutory damages after finding the defendant had violated federal law. Davis later filed an opposed motion requesting $130,410 in attorney fees based on her status as a prevailing party in the litigation. But the magistrate judge ruled against Davis and awarded her lawyers nothing, explaining that he was “stunned” by the request, noting there were duplicative and excessive fees charged by the attorneys, Jonathon Raburn and Dennis McCarty. The magistrate judge also noted that the case was simple and on point, and the nearly 300 hours spent on the case at an hourly rate of $450 demanded by the lawyers was “excessive by orders of magnitude.”
Davis later appealed the attorney fees request to the Fifth Circuit, where it was met by equal disbelief. “As an initial matter, we join the magistrate judge’s stunned reaction to Davis’ request for $130,000 in attorneys’ fees and concur that the record reflects neither the quality of legal work necessary for the requested hourly billing rate ($450.00 per hour), nor the quantity of work to support the 156.55 hours claimed by Jonathon Raburn and the 133.25 hours claimed by Dennis McCarty,” the Fifth Circuit wrote in a per curiam opinion.
“The pleadings filed by McCarty and Raburn, including the brief on appeal, are replete with grammatical errors, formatting issues, and improper citations, and is certainly not the caliber of work warranting such an extraordinary hourly rate,” the decision noted. While the FDCPA gives courts little option but to award attorney fees to prevailing parties unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that the lawyers should be awarded nothing. The decision notes a U.S. District Court judge’s finding of bad-faith conduct on the part of Davis and her attorneys, in which he concluded that it appeared that the cause of action “was created by counsel for the purpose of generating, in counsel’s own words, an ‘incredibly high’ fee request.”
“The record suggests that McCarty and Raburn—in an attempt to receive an unwarranted and inflated award—impermissibly treated the $130,410 fee request as an ‘opening bid’ in an attempt to negotiate the attorney’s fee award,” according to the decision. “This simply cannot be tolerated. Bottom line: the FDCPA does not support avaricious efforts of attorneys seeking a windfall. Because grossly excessive attorney’s fee requests directly contravene the purpose of the FDCPA, these tactics must be deterred,” the court concluded in its decision.
In a statement, McCarty and Raburn said they were disappointed in the ruling but respect the Fifth Circuit’s decision. “We know these judges would not be in the position they are without outstanding legal careers. However, we want to be clear that we did not file this lawsuit in bad faith. It was over a debt collector using an illegal name that is prohibited by the FDCPA,” the lawyers said. “We feel that it is a sad day for the consumer as this ruling may encourage debt collectors to break the law without any fear of consequence other than a statutory fine,” the statement notes. “Because the majority of FDCPA cases do not carry damages, we feel that attorneys will be hesitant to take on these cases, which leaves the consumer exposed to bad debt collection practices.”