{"id":407,"date":"2018-02-21T07:47:23","date_gmt":"2018-02-21T07:47:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/staging.direction.com\/rpb\/?p=407"},"modified":"2018-08-15T19:46:00","modified_gmt":"2018-08-15T19:46:00","slug":"disagreement-attorney-rates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/disagreement-attorney-rates\/","title":{"rendered":"Further Disagreement on the EDVA Bench over Attorney Rates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Multiple recent decisions from the Eastern District show a widening disagreement among the judges regarding \u201creasonable\u201d hourly rates for attorneys.\u00a0 This disagreement is manifesting itself most notably among the judges of the Alexandria Division as they rule on attorney\u2019s fees petitions that involve lawyers from firms based in both Virginia and downtown DC.\u00a0 Rates acceptable to at least one judge have been rejected by other judges within same division.\u00a0 The bottom-line for practitioners is that it is not sufficient to be familiar with the general precedent in the Eastern District when applying for attorney\u2019s fees.\u00a0 Rather, practitioners must know their individual judge\u2019s history and preferences, while carefully crafting the petition for attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n

$400,000 Attorney\u2019s Fee Cut by 67%<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Salim v. Dahlberg<\/em>, 1:15-cv-468 LMB \/ IDD, 2016 WL 2930943 (E.D. Va. May 18, 2016)<\/a>, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema wrote a 49-page (!) opinion on just the question of recoverable attorney\u2019s fees.\u00a0 There, she rejected both the Laffey Matrix <\/em>and the Vienna Metro <\/em>matrix to determine reasonable hourly attorney rates in Northern Virginia.\u00a0 In the 49-page opinion, Judge Brinkema goes into great detail to analyze the hourly rates requested by the plaintiff, the billing records submitted by the plaintiff\u2019s counsel, the six supporting affidavits submitted by plaintiff (including many leading local practitioners in Alexandria), and the defendant\u2019s opposition (which included only a single opposing affidavit).\u00a0 In the end, Judge Brinkema largely sided with the defendant and cut plaintiff\u2019s fees down from $400,000 to a just over $151,000.<\/p>\n

In the underlying case, the plaintiff alleged various federal and state civil rights claims against the defendant.\u00a0 After a favorable jury verdict, the plaintiff petitioned for attorney\u2019s fees under Virginia Code Ann. \u00a7 8.01-42.1.\u00a0 Plaintiff was represented by the firm of Victor M. Glasberg & Associates, and sought hourly rates for the work of two attorneys:\u00a0 $550\/hour for lead counsel with 39 years of experience, and $250\/hour for an associate attorney with less than one year of experience.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s counsel must have expected a fight to recover fees because they submitted six <\/em>affidavits of leading local lawyers.\u00a0 While Judge Brinkema noted that these six local lawyers were \u201cwell-known and well-respected by the Court,\u201d none of the affidavits swayed the judge.\u00a0 Instead, it was the defendant\u2019s opposition and single affidavit submitted by Attorney Wayne G. Travell that carried the day.\u00a0 Judge Brinkema objected that the plaintiff\u2019s six affidavits were \u201cconclusory\u201d in nature and omitted detailed discussion of the plaintiff\u2019s billing rates and records.<\/p>\n

Vienna Metro <\/em>and Laffey <\/em>Matrices Rejected<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judge Brinkema rejected the Vienna Metro <\/em>matrix, characterizing it as applying only to \u201ccomplex civil litigation.\u201d\u00a0 Instead, her opinion relied primarily upon Judge T.S. Elliss\u2019s opinion in Route Triple Seven <\/em>(discussed in a prior EDVA Update here) which characterized a rate of $420 as the \u201cupper limit for what counts as a reasonable rate for a very competent attorney in an uncomplicated . . . dispute.\u201d\u00a0 Further, Judge Brinkema also rejected the Laffey <\/em>Matrix<\/a> of DC-based attorney hourly rates published by the U.S. Department of Justice.\u00a0 According to Judge Brinkema, DC-based hourly rates are not properly comparable for litigation in the Alexandria federal court.<\/p>\n

While the defendant\u2019s expert did not challenge the $550\/hour rate sought by plaintiff\u2019s lead counsel, Judge Brinkema cut it down anyway to $500\/hour, and then reduced the recoverable hours by half.\u00a0 Turning to fees requested for plaintiff\u2019s junior counsel, Judge Brinkema cut the hourly rate down from $250 to $125 on the grounds that the newly-minted attorney had not yet been admitted to the Virginia Bar (having just recently graduated from law school).\u00a0 Because of this, Judge Brinkema characterized the young attorney\u2019s contribution as more akin to a law clerk, and she applied the lower hourly rated recommended by the defendant\u2019s expert.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judge Brinkema appears to be speaking to the bar in this 49-page opinion, which provides a roadmap for future petitions for attorney\u2019s fees.\u00a0 As the disagreement over hourly rates among the judges of the Eastern District grows, it is critical for practitioners to understand where each judge comes down on this issue.\u00a0 This opinion is required reading for any practitioner who expects to submit an attorney\u2019s fee petition to Judge Brinkema in the future.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Multiple recent decisions from the Eastern District show a widening disagreement among the judges regarding \u201creasonable\u201d hourly rates for attorneys.\u00a0 This disagreement is manifesting itself most notably among the judges of the Alexandria Division as they rule on attorney\u2019s fees petitions that involve lawyers from firms based in both Virginia and downtown DC.\u00a0 Rates acceptable … Continue reading Further Disagreement on the EDVA Bench over Attorney Rates<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1105,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-attorneys-fee-awards","category-business-litigation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rpb-law.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}