No Need For Independent Fee Expert Scrutiny, Because Trial Judge Can Do It.
Here is an interesting reasonableness of fees challenge made on appeal to our local Santa Ana appellate court in Yeskin v. Pacific Mercantile Bank, Case No. G045361 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary on behalf of a 3-0 panel.
Bank won a contractual claim award of $1.4 million (after trial court reductions) against one plaintiff. Bank then requested an award of almost $1.4 million in fees (although claiming to have spent closer to $2 million), but the trial judge asked for supplemental briefing and elimination of fees for work done on behalf of other parties, elimination of work done on an unsuccessful fraudulent conveyance claim, and clarification of severely redacted billings submitted in support of the fees request. After this was done, the lower court awarded Bank $575,000 in fees against the one plaintiff and another $187,000 in fees against the same plaintiff due to his legal maneuverings.
(The lower court did find that a $500 hourly rate was reasonable, but reduced the requested lodestar hours of 2,756 down to 1,150 in fashioning the awards. The trial judge found the requested fees were excessive, based on overstaffing, and driven by over analysis of the litigation by Bank’s counsel.)
The fee awards were affirmed despite plaintiff’s challenges to them.
Plaintiff principally argued that the lower court erred in not appointing an independent expert to review the billings in the fee proceeding. No, said the appellate court, because the trial judge having familiarity with the case is equipoised to make such a review, with no heightened scrutiny necessary because this was not a probate case (unlike the different situation presented in Donahue v. Donahue, 182 Cal.App.4th 259 (2010) [discussed in our February 27, 2010 post].)