However, The Appellate Court Reduces Fees A Bit For Fees On Fees Work By A Higher Billing Attorney And Cautions That The Real Rate Report Has To Be Used With Precision.
In Baer v. Tedder, Case Nos. G063642 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (published), the appellate court held that appellate fees incurred in upholding inspection demand discovery sanctions were properly authorized in the fee-shifting arena. Acting Presiding Justice Sanchez was the author of this opinion. However, there are other aspects of the opinion which are comment-worthy.
The appellate court did sustain most of an appellate fee award, but the reviewing court made its own “cut” because a higher billing attorney’s work on a “fees on fees” motion was too rich for the work involved, such that the $113,000 approximate fee award below was decreased to $101,805 on appeal.
The 4/3 DCA also indicated that the Real Rate Report, which is a good survey on fees throughout the nation, has to be used with precision: (1) where litigation is involved, it is not appropriate to use general commercial attorney work rates for comparative purposes; and (2) Los Angeles rates are not comparable to Orange County venue-based rates. However, the attorney declarations saved the day as far as opinions on the reasonableness of the rates being requested.
Finally, because the attorney appealed also, the appellate fee award—which was only fashioned against client—also had to be assessed against both client and the appealing attorney.