The United States Supreme Court has ruled that where a statue provides for the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees that the trial judge may increase the fee awards for exceptional performances, but only in rare instances. In Sonny Perdue vs. Kenny, S.Ct. 2010 WL 1558980 (U.S.), the question before the Supreme Court was whether the calculation of an attorney’s fee, under federal fee/shifting statutes, based on the “lodestar”, i.e. the number of hours worked multiplied by the prevailing hourly rates, may be increased due to superior performance and results. The District Court, based on a lodestar calculation awarded fees of approximately $6 million. The Court then enhanced the award by 75% based on the skill of counsel and what it termed as “extraordinary” results. The 11th Circuit affirmed the award.
The Supreme Court notes, among other things, that the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a “reasonable” attorney’s fee and that a fee applicant seeking an enhancement must produce “specific evidence” that supports the award. The Court said
In light of what we have said in prior cases, we reject any contention that a fee determined by the lodestar method may not be enhanced in any situation. The lodestar method was never intended to be conclusive in all circumstances. Instead, there is a “strong presumption” that the lodestar figure is reasonable, but that presumption may be overcome in those rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee. (P_________)
The Court noted that the determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, but that this discretion is not unlimited and it is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination, including any word of enhancement. The Court determined that in this case the trial judge did not do that and said that the 75% enhancement appeared to have been essentially arbitrary. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.