A recent NLJ story, “1^st Circuit Deems Plaintiffs Who Achieved Settlement ‘Prevailing Parties’ Entitled to Fees” reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1^st Circuit has ruled in Hutchison v. Patrick (pdf)that parties who achieve litigation goals through settlement, as opposed to a verdict or a formal consent decree are nonetheless “prevailing parties” eligible for attorney fees.  The plaintiffs’ total award for legal costs includes $414,036 in attorney fees and $10,986 in costs to the Center for Public Representation and $361,191 in attorney fees to lawyers at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr.  The state appealed the fee award.

In the underlying case, plaintiffs sued the state for allegedly violating the American with Disabilities Act and other federal laws by failing to provide brain-injured residents of nursing homes with appropriate services.  The parties began settlement talks in October 2007 and reached final agreement in May 2008, which the district court approved in September 2008. 

The 1^st Circuit ruling, written by Senior Judge Bruce Selya, analyzed the Hutchison case in light of the 1^st Circuit ruling Aronov v. Napolitano.  The panel made three conclusions: that “the district court appropriately characterized the plaintiffs as prevailing parties, that the relief obtained was sufficiently final to justify a fee award, and that the court acted within the purview of its discretion in fixing the amount.”  “The broad enforcement authority bestowed upon the district court separates the Agreement from the mine-run of private settlements, which – though enforceable – require resort to an independent action for breach of contract,” Selya wrote.

Selya also upheld the plaintiffs’ fee request and rate request on the grounds that the plaintiffs “discounted the total number of hours before compiling their fee request.”  He concluded that the hourly rates of $250 and $425 for both groups of plaintiffs’ lawyers were in line with their rates for similar work.  The non-profit Center for Public Interest used the same rates that the organizations’ lawyers charged in other civil rights cases, Selya noted.  Wilmer’s rates “were pretty much the same as those received by the firm in a recently concluded public interest case,” he wrote.  He also noted that they “were in many instances substantially below the standard billing rate charged by the private attorneys.”

NALFA first reported on this case in blog post "1st Circuit Considers Prevailing Party Status in Pretrial Class Action Settlement"