Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.



February 23, 1995

SOON Y. PARK, Plaintiff,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: OLIVER GASCH


 Plaintiff was awarded a judgment following a bench trial in the amount of $ 150,000. Pursuant to the outcome of the case, counsel has filed a motion for the award of an appropriate fee. The Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983), and Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891, 104 S. Ct. 1541 (1984), discussed this subject and what constitutes a reasonable fee. The Court of Appeals for this Circuit in an en banc opinion, Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988), discussed these two Supreme Court opinions and with some specificity enunciated the rule on this subject as follows:


Henceforth the prevailing market rate method heretofore used in awarding fees to traditional or private firms and public interest legal services organizations shall apply as well to those attorneys who practice privately and for profit but at reduced rates reflecting noneconomic goals.

 Id. at 1524.

 Plaintiff's counsel, with these decisions in mind, has afforded the Court substantial information as to what constitutes the prevailing market rate for cases of the character of this law suit in this jurisdiction. He has supplied affidavits and declarations of experienced counsel in this field of litigation--both those in general private practice firms and those who specialize in civil rights cases. Generally, they concur that the requested fee of $ 300 an hour is entirely reasonable for one having the experience in civil rights matters and the expertise in that field as plaintiff's counsel.

 Mr. Barrett graduated from the University of California Law School at Berkeley in 1948 and was admitted to the California Bar in 1949. He served as deputy district attorney in Alameda County through the end of 1954. In January 1955, he was appointed and served in an executive position as trial attorney at the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. He was appointed chief of the Civil Rights Section of the Criminal Division in 1957. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, he was designated executive assistant to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the newly established Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. During this period, he tried many civil rights cases before three-judge courts throughout the country. Judge Joseph M. F. Ryan served as Acting Assistant Attorney General during a portion of this time and enthusiastically commended as outstanding the character of Mr. Barrett's service. The Court's colleague, Judge Harold Greene, who was Mr. Barrett's colleague in the Civil Rights Division, was equally enthusiastic about the service rendered by Mr. Barrett. In 1967, he was appointed Deputy General Counsel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This position he held for ten years. In private practice in 1977, he spent most of his time on appeals in antitrust matters. In 1982, he opened his own law office, specializing in civil rights matters, particularly, employment discrimination cases. He accepts cases on a pro bono basis from the Washington Clinic for the Homeless, Legal Counsel for the Elderly, and The Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Depending on a client's ability to pay, he has agreed to accept compensation ranging from $ 50 to $ 125 an hour.

 Counsel's retainer agreement with the plaintiff contains the following language:


If Dr. Park obtains relief on her complaint, either by administrative order, by court judgment, or by settlement to which she agrees, she will pay Mr. Barrett $ 125 per hour of his professional services; provided: that if attorney's fees are allowed in any proceeding against Howard University, the amount that Dr. Park will be obliged to pay shall be the amount so awarded. If Dr. Park is neither awarded any relief on her complaint nor agrees to any settlement, Mr. Barrett will be entitled to no fee.

 Ignoring the proviso, defense counsel argued that since the first part of this agreement contained the rate of $ 125 per hour, that is the controlling rate. This interpretation ignores the proviso and is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891, 104 S. Ct. 1541, and Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc., 857 F.2d at 1519.

 Generally, a reasonable fee in matters of this kind is determined by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the project by the figure which represents the prevailing market rate for the services of the lawyer in the category of the applicant.

 In Howard University's opposition to plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs, filed October 17, 1994, note 3, page 4, reads as follows: "The University does not challenge the number of hours Park's lawyer spent on this case nor does it challenge the costs requested."

 With this concession in mind, the remaining issue is the determination of a reasonable rate for Mr. Barrett's services. The Laffey matrix, as modified to conform to the Save Our Cumberland Mountains en banc decision, provides for a fee of $ 300 an hour for one with 20 years or more of experience for services rendered in the years 1992 and 1993. This computation was done by Mr. Daniel F. Van Home, Assistant United States Attorney, and incorporated as Exhibit A to Mr. Barrett's second supplemental submission filed on January 18, 1995.

 Filed as Exhibit B to this submission is the Declaration of Mr. John C. Keeney, Jr., a partner in the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, in charge of the firm's community services department. He filed this declaration on behalf of the plaintiffs in Terence Manuel, et al. v. P & D's Flying Circus, Inc., d/b/a World Gym of Wheaton, Civil Case No. S-89-3538 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Mr. Keeney, in a lengthy declaration, advised the Court that he was a 1976 cum laude graduate of the Harvard Law School and had extensive experience with fee matters in civil rights cases and based on current rates, he had submitted a bill in the amount of $ 240 per hour for services rendered and that he had approved a bill for Mr. Stephen Routh, who graduated from the Harvard Law School magna cum laude in 1983 and since 1991, a partner in Hogan & Hartson, at the reduced rate of $ 195 a hour. The bill of Mr. Stephen Hollman, a 1983 graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, was approved by Mr. Keeney for a rate of $ 185 an hour.

 Mr. Keeney qualifies as an expert in determining fees in civil rights litigation cases. In the case of Cheryl Feeling, et al. v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, et al., Civil Action No. 82-2994, in this Court, an affidavit by him as to the value of counsel's time revealed the following conclusions. Mr. Cunningham had approximately twenty years' experience in 1992 and Mr. Berlow, who had approximately sixteen years' experience, were rated at $ 295 per hour and $ 250 per hour, respectively. His affidavit also reflected that Hogan & Hartson would bill $ 300 for Mr. Cunningham and $ 275 per hour for Mr. Berlow for services rendered in 1993. The Court's records further indicate that Mr. Cunningham is the managing attorney for Neighborhood Legal Services and Mr. Berlow is a solo practitioner.

 In support of Mr. Barrett's fee application, the Declaration of Stephen J. Pollack has been submitted. Mr. Pollack's experience includes service as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, 1967-69, as well as service as Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, 1961-64. Mr. Pollack's declaration reveals that he had frequent contact with Mr. Barrett concerning the work of the Civil Rights Division in which Mr. Barrett was serving. Mr. Barrett's time was devoted primarily to precedent-setting cases *fn1" in the Civil Rights Division and supervising other lawyers in such cases. As Chair of Shea & Gardner's Executive Committee, since 1993 Mr. Pollack has supervised the firm's billing practices and is familiar with billing rates for attorneys of various experience levels similar to the case sub judice. By reason of Mr. Pollack's experience with Shea & Gardner and his general familiarity with the level of fees charged by attorneys experienced in civil rights litigation and his past association with Mr. Barrett and his knowledge of Mr. Barrett's litigating skills, he states that Mr. Barrett is qualified by reason of his years of experience and legal knowledge and litigating skills to justify a fee in the highest bracket of the Laffey matrix as modified.

 Daniel A. Rezneck, a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter, in his affidavit, filed by the plaintiff, states that he has extensive experience litigating attorney's fees issues and he is familiar with the standards governing the setting of attorney's fees and the applicable federal statutes and the billing rates of lawyers in Washington, D.C., who engage in active litigation in the federal courts. Arnold & Porter's billing rate for attorneys having one to three years' experience is between $ 135 and $ 180 an hour in 1992. His firm's billing rate for lawyers with 20 or more years' experience is generally between $ 260 and $ 330 per hour in 1992.

 Gerald P. Norton's declaration states that he is a partner in the law firm of Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz. Billing rates for lawyers in his firm are set annually based on the length of time since graduation from law school and his or her experience and areas of expertise. For a lawyer one to three years out of law school, the billing rate would be between $ 105 and $ 130 per hour since July 1, 1991. For lawyers with more than 20 years of experience, the rate has been $ 220 to $ 330 per hour since July 1, 1991.

 The Affidavit of Mitchell Rogovin, a partner in the firm of Donovan Leisure, Rogovin, Huge & Schiller in Washington, D.C., reflects that billing rates in that firm depend upon the experience of the lawyer and the time since the lawyer graduated from law school. For one with one to three years' experience, $ 105 to $ 125 per hour would be billed. One hundred thirty dollars per hour would be billed in 1992. For one with 20 or more years' experience, $ 300 per hour would be billed in 1993.

 The Affidavit of Richard L. Jacobson, a partner in the firm of Fulbright & Jaworski, reflects a billing rate for attorneys with 20 or more years' experience to be between $ 275 and $ 350 per hour in 1992. The billing rate for paralegals was between $ 55 and $ 85 per hour in 1992. Thomas P. Gies, a partner in the firm of Crowell & Moring, furnished an affidavit with respect to rates charged in the case of Carolee Brady Hartman, et al. v. Joseph Duffey, Civil Action No. 77-2019. His firm's non-contingent rates for employment discrimination work are as follows: Crowell & Moring Attorneys Year of Grad. Rate Thomas P. Gies 1976 $ 255 Laurel P. Malson 1979 210 Victoria L. Eastus 1987 175 Jocelyn C. Frye 1988 160 Karen L. Katz * 1989 145 Glenn D. Grant 1990 130 Katherine K. White 1991 115 Alice M. Jones 1991 115 Caryl M. Lazzaro 1991 115 (* This timekeeper, Karen L. Katz, is no longer at Cromwell & Moring. Her rate is therefore based on a composite of the rates of several attorneys of the same level of experience.)


© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.