A recent NLJ story, “Lawyering Suits Pile Up at High Court” reports that the U.S. Supreme Court decided an unusually large number of cases involving how lawyers do their jobs.  The justices took up 16 cases – 10 of which were fully briefed and argued, and six of which were disposed of in per curiam decisions.  In total, the lawyering cases amounted to nearly 20 percent of the Court’s decision docket.  Three cases involved attorney fees: Perdue v. Kenny A.; Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.; and Astrue v. Ratliff. 

In Kenny A., the justices reversed a fee enhancement awarded for extraordinary results by the lawyers in long-running, complex and successful litigation against the state of Georgia.  Writing for the 5-4 majority Justice Samuel Alito set the bar high for lodestar fee enhancements for lawyer’s superior performance.  He said they only would be available in “rare” and “extraordinary” circumstances and when the lodestar calculation does not adequately measure the attorney’s true market value.

In Astrue, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court’s unanimous decision.  The justices held that fee awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act are made to the client, not to the lawyer, and the federal government may offset awards to collect pre-existing debts.

In Hardt, Thomas wrote again for the full Court, saying that a party seeking to recover attorney fees and cost in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not have to be a “prevailing party”.  Instead, the Court held that fees and costs may be awarded if the claimant has achieved “some degree of success on the merits.”