Trial Court Did Not Err in Awarding A Higher Hourly Rate to Attorney Providing Postarbitration Services for Prevailing Client.
In Fuchs & Associates, Inc. v. Lesso, Case No. B241384 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 29, 2013) (unpublished), former attorneys sued client to collect a claimed additional $647,688 in unpaid fees under a retainer agreement which had this clause: “ATTORNEYS’ FEE CLAUSE. The prevailing party in any action or proceeding arising out of or to enforce any provision of this Fee Agreement, with the exception of a fee arbitration or mediation under Business & Professions Code Sections 6200-6206, will be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in that action or proceeding, or in the enforcement of any judgment or award rendered.” The matter was submitted to a binding fee arbitration, with the arbitrator determining client did not have to pay anything more but that the attorneys did not have to refund $480,998.68 previously paid. (What type of underlying case was this? Answer: marital dissolution action and related lawsuits.) In an earlier opinion, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s confirmation of the arbitration award to judgment.
Then, client moved for an award of fees. The lower court denied the request for fees incurred in the fee arbitration in entirety (based on the fee clause carve-out), but granted client’s request for her postarbitration fees at the requested hourly rate of $325, after slicing about 23 hours of requested work, for a total award of $21,125.
Attorneys appealed the fee award, to no avail.
Nothing in the arbitration reference order or retainer agreement precluded client from obtaining postarbitration fees. Also, client indeed could be found to the prevailing party, having fought back a substantial fee claim even though prior paid fees were not disgorged ($647,688 exposure negated). Although client’s attorney on postarbitration work only billed her at a $200 hourly clip, the trial court had discretion to find that $325 was more of a reasonable hourly rate for purposes of a fee shifting lodestar. (Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1260 (2010) [reasonable market value of attorney services, for lodestar analysis, is the standard regardless of whether attorneys charged nothing, below-market, or at discounted rates].)