Block Billing, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Inflated Fee Request In A Non-complex FEHA Case Where Block Billing And Failure To Explain Proliferation In Fees For A Six Month Period Through Trial Justified A Drastic Reduct

Fee Request Was About $1.75 Million In A Case Where $36,757.25 In Damages Was Awarded, With A Lower Court Awarding Only $135,102.

               Inflated fee requests are often reduced substantially and sometimes denied altogether.  In the next case, block billing, failure to explain a huge jump in the fee request for a six-month period, use of an excessive hourly rate, and unreasonable work efforts all coalesced to lead to a substantially reduced fee award, one affirmed in Howell v. Dept. of State Hospitals, Case No. A168526 (1^st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 7, 2024) (unpublished).

               There, plaintiff brought a FEHA suit and won just $36,757.25 in lost earnings and health benefits after three years of litigation and a two-week jury trial.  Plaintiff sought about $1.75 million in fees, inclusive of a 1.75 positive multiplier.  On various grounds, the lower court determined that the fee request was inflated so as to justify a reduction to just $135,102.  The appellate court affirmed that determination, presenting some nice takeaways for litigants/attorneys in attorney’s fees law and motion proceedings:

• • • Block billing – Plaintiff’s counsel block billed which prevented the trial judge from doing a reasonable audit of what fees were appropriate.
    • Unreasonable time – Plaintiff sought recovery for unreasonable work effort for overlitigating the case, examples being time spent on 19 unsuccessful motions in limine and hours combating a physical exam request even though plaintiff was claiming pain and suffering.
    • Lack of complexity – Plaintiff was requesting a large number in a case where the issues were not that complex.
    • Excessive hourly rates—Plaintiff’s counsel requested larger hourly rates based on a Napa County venue for the case, which were higher than counsel’s San Joaquin County home rate and which was reviewed by the lower court as a “surreptitious” multiplier request.
    • Discrepancy in explaining the final large number—In a January 2023 settlement conference statement, plaintiff claimed to have expended $123,101.95 in fees/costs, and counsel could not explain the $1 million proliferation in the request for the six months between January-July 2023.
    • Denial of a multiplier against an entity funded by taxpayers—It is proper for a lower court to deny based on a taxpayer status consideration.
    • Inflated fee requests are a special concern allowing for reduction or denial—See Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4^th 970, 990 (2010).