Article: Understanding Attorney Fee-Shifting to Mitigate Risk
December 5, 2023
A recent Business Insurance article by Iran Valentin and Allison Scott, “Perspectives: Understanding Attorney Fee Shifting to Mitigate Exposures”, reports on the importance of understanding attorney fee-shifting in litigation to mitigate risk. This article was posted with permission. The article reads:
The availability of attorneys fees is a significant concern to policyholders. Without the potential to recover the fees, most dubious claims and suits related to employment law and consumer protection, for example, would not be pursued. The potential of a fee recovery also drives up the cost of resultant litigation, settlements and awards. Thus, a double-headed monster emerges: an increase in the number of claims and an increase in exposure, which can eventually drive up the costs of insurance.
An existential threat that exists for corporations is a “nuclear verdict,” or a runaway jury award. These huge verdicts grew in the face of incessant legal advertising by plaintiffs attorneys and the resultant slanted narrative effectively desensitized potential jurors to the value of money and preemptively taints prospective jury pools.
Within this context, it is more important than ever for insurance professionals and defense counsel to understand the significance of attorney-fee shifting. When crafting a defense strategy, many factors are considered, including the nature of the alleged loss, the profiles of the litigants, the reputation of the claimants’ counsel, recent jury verdicts and the jurisdiction. Equally as important should be considering the effect of fee-shifting, to develop strategies to mitigate that exposure.
Remedial legislation
Basically, fee-shifting requires a losing party in litigation to pay a prevailing party’s attorneys fees. It represents a departure from the “American Rule,” which generally provides that each party to a litigation will bear their own fees. However, fee-shifting statutes have continued to grow, especially in the areas of employment and consumer protection, or so-called remedial legislation.
One of the purposes of remedial legislation is to introduce policies intended to benefit the public good, including anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation and consumer protection. The policies enable fee-shifting provisions so alleged victims have access to competent legal representation. It is not always the alleged victims who seek vindication, but rather lawyers who make a market in an area where attorneys fees are available.
Fee-shifting is sometimes a misnomer, as the availability of fees under enabling law is often limited to a prevailing plaintiff, as opposed to a prevailing defendant. Under those laws, legislators seek to avoid the creation of a “chilling effect,” in dissuading potential plaintiffs and their lawyers from pursuing a claim.
Some laws allow for more traditional fee-shifting, by allowing prevailing defendants to recover defense fees for claims that lack merit or are brought in bad faith. While a prevailing party may be awarded fees under a fee-shifting law, there is often attendant litigation over who constitutes a “prevailing party.” Generally, a prevailing party is one who achieves a substantial proportion of the relief sought, whether or not that party actually obtains a verdict. Courts have held that parties may not only prevail by judgment but also by compromise or settlement.
In at least one jurisdiction, fee-shifting has also been made available in the professional liability context. In New Jersey, the precedential 1996 case of Saffer v. Willoughby allowed a successful plaintiff to recover attorneys fees in prosecuting a legal malpractice action. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a negligent attorney is responsible for resulting legal fees and costs. Interestingly, those fees were not considered fee-shifting, but “consequential damages” flowing from the attorney’s negligence. New Jersey courts also allow recovery of fees by a third-party if the attorney intentionally breaches a recognized duty owed to a non-client, such as when serving as a fiduciary.
The “common fund” and “substantial benefit” doctrines are also court-created fee-shifting mechanisms. The common fund doctrine applies where litigation has created or preserved a common fund for the benefit of a group of people — such as a class action — and, accordingly, an attorney may be awarded attorneys fees out of that fund. The substantial benefit doctrine applies if a judgment confers a substantial benefit on a defendant, such as in a corporate derivative action, which could lead to the payment by the defendant of the attorneys fees incurred by the plaintiff.
Outside of the statutory and court-created fee-shifting framework, parties to a contract may agree to fee-shifting provisions. Commercial contracts quite commonly contain default provisions that call for the payment of attorneys fees to a prevailing party in a dispute to enforce the terms of the agreement.
In most jurisdictions, attorneys fees that are awarded pursuant to a fee-shifting statute are calculated by setting a “lodestar,” which is the number of hours reasonably expended by an attorney multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate in the jurisdiction. Courts have the flexibility to adjust the lodestar considering certain factors, such as the results obtained by the attorney; the time and labor required to obtain that result; the attorney’s skill; the attorney’s customary fee; the amount of money involved in the claim; and awards in similar cases.
If the prevailing party has only achieved partial or limited success, the requested lodestar may be considered excessive and reduced. Moreover, the attorney’s presentation of time billed must be set forth with sufficient detail, based on appropriate rates and in compliance with the jurisdiction’s ethical requirements.
Determining exposure
When a claim arises, insurance professionals and defense counsel should determine whether the policyholder is exposed to any court rule, statute, regulation or case law that allows fee-shifting or an award of attorneys fees. They should also conduct an early assessment of liability and damages and consider early avenues to resolution to mitigate the exposure to fee-shifting. Depending on the jurisdiction, defense counsel may be able to craft strategies designed to cabin the availability of attorneys fees, helping to drive resolution. These are good faith strategies and methods employed during a case to drive resolution and also mitigate the exposure to attorneys fees.
Often, a reasonable settlement curbing increased fees and costs is the second-best result outside of obtaining an early dismissal. However, it is important to take care during settlement negotiations and the drafting of settlement agreements, releases and stipulations resolving litigation to account for attorneys fees and costs. Lack of attention or poor drafting could result in unintended consequences, including the imposition of a fee award.
When an adverse judgment calls for the imposition of an award of attorneys fees, strategies can still be employed to curb a disproportionately excessive fee claim, by relying on mitigation strategies employed at the outset designed to limit the recovery of fees; exposing the limited success of a claimant; exposing an adversary’s wastefulness during the dispute; questioning the proofs submitted in support of the fee claim; and otherwise contesting the reasonableness of the fee claim.
Iram Valentin is co-chair of the professional liability practice group in the Hackensack, New Jersey, office of Kaufman Dolowich LLP. Allison Scott is an associate at the firm.