This page has some items on reasonable fee law that may prove helpful in
advancing your thinking or research on the subject.

In Arthur Anderson & Co., v. Perry Equipment Corp., (Texas May 16, 1997), the
Texas Supreme Court held that evidence of a contingency fee contract by itself
cannot support an award of attorney's fees. The plaintiff must present evidence
of the reasonableness and necessity of fees in light of the eight factors
required by the Texas disciplinary Rules.

It has sometimes been said that a fair fee will normally do three things, to
wit:
 | 1. The hours of time needed, and the skill level needed during those
hours, considered in the sub items of |
a. The time and labor required,
b. the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and
c. the skill required to perform the legal service properly. |
 | 2. The likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will
preclude other employment by the lawyer. |
 | 3. The fee customarily charged in the locality or by the circumstances. |
 | 4. The amount involved and the results obtained. |
 | 5. The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances. |
 | 6. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. |
 | 7. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer performing the
services |
 | 8. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained, and the
uncertainty of actual collection of the fee when due. |
The usual formula of Texas courts is to say that it will consider the factors
contained within the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct in determining
whether the fees were reasonable and necessary, and to stay only with those
factors. [Cf. Bocquet, 972 S.W.2d at 21-22, citing TEX.DISCIPLINARY R.
PROF. CONDUCT 1.04] The enumerated factors are the eight factors set out
above.
Note: Some state and federal courts recast the second item sometimes as "the
undesirability of the case", and the third item as "awards in similar cases"
E.g., See Johnson v. George Highway Express, Inc., 488 F2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).

But expert testimony needs a base. Attorneys seeking fees must keep time
records! In Heritage Resources, Inc. v Hill 8th Court of Appeals - El Paso
February 13, 2003 - 08-01-00383-CV, the appeals court said it might have awarded
more, but the evidence was hampered by the fact that no time records were
maintained by the attorneys, their legal assistants or staff for the 9,150
billable hours claimed, with the result that 100 hours of time were deemed
reasonable and equitable for the time involved in the case.

Because expert testimony of a reasonable fee is required, the only recourse
contesting sides' attorneys usually have has is to have an expert testify.
Although states commonly include in their disciplinary rules an exception to the
bar on an attorney testifying in his own case for testimony limited to the
attorney fee, it really is not good trial advocacy to talk too highly of oneself
(the jurors probably prefer to have an expert praise or criticize.)
Click
here for hints on adverse expert witness depositions.

North Dakota has judicially noted the elements that go into determining a
reasonable fee. Other states also have set out the elements in court
decisions. See City of Bismarck v. Thom (ND, 1977) stating that the base
for determining a reasonable fee is found by multiplying the number of hours
expended by each attorney by the hourly rate normally charged for similar work
by attorneys of like skill in the area. The court noted that it was for
similar work by attorneys of like skill, which is not necessarily the same
as the average hourly rate of all attorneys in the area. When this base
rate is established than other less objective factors are introduced to
determine a reasonable fee.

Norman, 836 F.2d at 1305-06. (“The court on reconsideration should
bear in mind that the measure of reasonable hours is determined by the
profession’s judgment of the time that may be conscionably billed and not the
least time in which it might theoretically have been done.")

The Evidence Required to Prove the Validity of Legal Assistant Fees as a
Compensable Component of Attorney Fee Awards is discussed by Vicki Kelly
Britain at 63 Texas Bar Journal 261 (2000). Although Texas courts
have approved legal assistant hourly rates of $90 an hour (e.g., In the Interest
of JLB, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 4901), often legal assistant fees have been
disapproved in whole or in part. Often the key to getting the legal
assistant's fees approved (or disapproved) as legal fees is the testimony of an
expert.

Persons starting to think about attorney fees per hour might start with some
of the resources offered by the state bar associations. For example see
the Texas State Bar Law Office Management Program at
http://www.texasbar.com/members/buildpractice/lomp/resource.htm

Bucklin's services
More research notes on the law of reasonable attorney fees.


The most common alternative billing methods.
 | The hourly fee. |
 | The fixed fee, |
 | The segmented fixed fee, a.k.a., the task-based fee. Specific items of
service carry standard charges. |
 | Plaintiff’s contingency fee. . |
 | The defense contingency — The lawyer and client determine a goal, in a
dollar number, of would represent the usual expected result. If the matter is
resolved for less than the goal amount set, the lawyer gets a percentage of
savings. If the matter is resolved for more than the amount set, the lawyer
reduces his hourly fee by a percentage.. |
 | Retainer fee — A set charge for a range of legal services over a
particular period of time. |
 | A variation of this is the availability- only retainer where a fee is paid
only to insure that the lawyer will be available. Specific services are
charged separately. |
 | A variation of this is the retainer trust account. A retainer amount is
paid into the lawyer’s trust account and used to pay fees as they occur. This
is sometimes combined with the availability - only retainer with the agreement
that a certain amount if unused at the end of the period will be paid to the
lawyer for staying available. |
 | Combination hourly rate (or flat fee) and contingency based on result. — A
reduced hourly fee plus a reduced contingency fee. This can be used when the
client cannot afford a straight hourly fee and the lawyer cannot take the risk
of a full contingency arrangement. |