Summary
holding that rate of $200.00 per hour was reasonable and was consistent with hourly fees charges by attorneys of similar credentials
Summary of this case from Bruce v. Chrysler Grp., LLCOpinion
C.A. No: 99A-11-009 RSG.
Submitted: July 27, 2000.
Decided: October 10, 2000.
Upon Appellee's Petition for Attorney's Fees GRANTED.
ORDER
Upon review of the aforementioned Petition for Attorney's Fees, it appears to this Court that:
1. Carol A. Linton ("Claimant") petitions for attorney's fees pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 2350 (f) in connection with her appeal to this Court from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board ("Board").
2. An award of counsel fees under Section 2350 requires an exercise of judicial discretion in light of the factors set forth in General Motors Corp. v. Cox. These eight factors are listed in what is now Delaware Lawyers' Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a). Also, the Court must take into account the employer's ability to pay and whether the attorney will receive any fees and expenses from any source other than the Board's award.
Del. Supr., 304 A.2d 55 (1973).
Pollard v. Placers, Inc., Del. Super., CA. No. 95A-09-021, Cooch, J. (Aug. 9, 1996), aff'd, Del. Supr., 703 A.2d 1211.
3. On June 19, 2000, this Court affirmed the Board's decision granting compensation for an injury that occurred when Claimant was performing services for Employer.
Marlyn Meadows v. Linton, Del. Super., C.A. 99A-11-009, Gebelein, J. (June 19, 2000).
4. Claimant, having prevailed in successfully opposing Employer's appeal, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. Claimant seeks $5,760.00 based upon 19.2 hours of work at an hourly rate of $200.00, plus an additional one-third as a contingency fee. In addition, Claimant seeks $318.24 in expenses the law office incurred.
5. Employer has not challenged this application.
6. Claimant requests an award calculated at the rate of $200.00 per hour. The hourly charges are reasonable in light of the work produced and are consistent with the hourly fees charged by other attorneys in the area with similar experience and credentials. Additionally, this Court finds that considering the complexity of the issues involved and the work produced, 19.2 hours of time is reasonable.
The Court also finds the expenses the office incurred for the clerical work to be fair and reasonable.
7. The Court finds that an additional one-third multiplier based on the contingent nature of the attorney's fee awarded is not justified in this case. This Court has noted that although a one-third multiplier is not to be granted routinely, it is justified where the fee was contingent on success, the outcome was doubtful, and the issues were novel and difficult. Where only the first factor (contingency of the result) exists, an award of one-third additional is not justified. Therefore, Claimant's request for the contingency fee must be denied.
Quality Car Wash v. Cox, Del. Super., C.A. No. 80A-DE-1, Balick, J. (Feb. 25, 1983) (Let. Op.) at 2.
State v. Pepper, Del. Super., CA. No. 85A-MY-1, Steele, J. (Aug. 9, 1988) (Opinion).
8. Based on the foregoing, Claimant is awarded $4158.24 based on the following calculation:
Appellate process (19.2 hours x $200.00) = $3840.00
Costs = $318.24
Total Awarded: = $4158.24
Based on the foregoing reasons, Appellee's Petition for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.