Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 allows the court to award counsel the reasonable costs incurred during the litigation. Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1108-09 (D. Kan. 2004).
KAN. STAT. ANN. § 60-1905 allows the court to award counsel the reasonable costs incurred during the litigation. Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1109 (D. Kan. 2004). Here, Steele Chaffee, LLC represents that it expended costs filing this action, expert review fees, and costs in defending an appeal Defendants initiated in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 allows the court to award counsel the reasonable costs incurred during the litigation. Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109 (D. Kan. 2004). Here, Brown & Crouppen, P.C. represents that it expended costs retaining experts, conducting depositions, filing this action, and mediating with Defendant.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 allows the court to award counsel the reasonable costs incurred during the litigation. Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109 (D. Kan. 2004). Here, the Douthit, Frets, Rouse, Gentile, & Rhodes, LLC firm represents that their law firm expended $5,069.
Turman, et al. v. Ameritruck Refrigerated Trans. Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d 444, 447-48 (D. Kan. 2000).Id. at 447; see also Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109 (D. Kan. 2004).Turman, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 448; see also Newton, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 1108 (D. Kan. 2004) (noting that the 25% contingency fee charged by plaintiff's counsel was a lower fee rate than what is often charged in personal injury cases).
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 allows the court to award counsel the reasonable costs incurred during the litigation. Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1108-09 (D. Kan. 2004).
The one-third contingency fee is “the fee customarily charged in this locality for similar services” (fourth and eighth factors), and favors counsel's fee request. Courts have approved similar and larger attorney's fees percentages as reasonable in other cases apportioning wrongful death proceeds under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905. See, e.g., Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1108 (D. Kan. 2004) (finding that a 25% contingency fee award was reasonable, and indeed lower, than what often is charged in a personal injury case); Dudley v. Gagne, No. 05-2030-JAR, 2006 WL 314347, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 3, 2006) (finding that the attorney's one-third contingency fee with plaintiff was reasonable); Turman, 125 F.Supp.2d at 48 (“[I]n [the court's] experience . . . a one-third contingency fee is not uncommon in wrongful death actions.”). Granting this request “honors an agreement bargained for by competent adults.” Roth v. Builder's Stone & Masonry, Inc., No. 19-2747-DDC-GEB, 2020 WL 7633973, at *3 (D. Kan. Dec. 22, 2020) (approving fee request under Section § 60-1905 of the Act).
The court thus concludes the 40% attorney's fee award contemplated by plaintiffs' contingent fee agreement is a reasonable fee arrangement in this case. See, e.g., Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1108 (D. Kan. 2004) (finding that a 25% contingency fee award was reasonable, and indeed lower, than what often is charged in a personal injury case); Dudley v. Gagne, No. 05-2030-JAR, 2006 WL 314347, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 3, 2006) (finding that the attorney's one-third contingency fee with plaintiff was reasonable); Turman, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 48 ("[I]n [the court's] experience . . . a one-third contingency fee is not uncommon in wrongful death actions."). In sum, while one Rule 1.5(a) factor disfavors the fee request and several others are neutral, the court finds that the standards adopted in this rule, on balance, favor approving the fee request of plaintiffs' counsel.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 allows the court to award counsel their costs incurred during the litigation. Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109 (D. Kan. 2004). The costs in this case total $62,497.51.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 allows the court to award counsel the reasonable costs incurred during the litigation. Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1109 (D. Kan. 2004). Here, Mr. Florez represents that his firm expended $3,072.