Opinion
FSTCV146023282S
12-07-2016
R& W Staffing Corp., ETC v. Christopher O'Hara
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (128.00)
Taggart D. Adams, Judge Trial Referee.
This breach of contract action involves a " Staffing Agreement" related to a temporary worker furnished by the plaintiff, R& W Staffing Corp. (R& W) to the defendant O'Hara. After a one-day trial, this court initially rendered a decision in favor of the defendant (Dkt. Entry 124.00) then, upon a motion to reconsider, this court determined it had made an error in its decision and found in favor of R& W in the amount of $13, 104.00, plus reasonable attorneys fees based on a provision in the contract allowing for the imposition of such fees in cases where R& W incurred attorneys fees in the course of collecting unpaid charges. Dkt. Entry 126.02. R& W has now moved for an award of attorneys fees incurred in the amount of $12, 841.00 and has submitted a bill of costs of $705.60 for the clerk of the court's consideration. Dkt. Entry 130.00. In Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456, 839 A.2d 589 (2004) the Connecticut Supreme Court established " a paradigm within which all parties must act when pursuing a claim for attorneys fees" . . . Parties must supply the court with a description of the nature and extent of the fees sought, to which the court may apply its knowledge and experience in determining the reasonableness of the fees requested. Id., 480.
For this purpose, R& W has submitted an affidavit of its attorney, John Morgan, which states in pertinent part:
In connection with action (sic), I performed numerous acts as attorney for the Plaintiff and rendered the Plaintiff, R& W Staffing Corp, various services as attorney of record in this matter. Such actions include review of relevant facts and circumstances with client, communication with client throughout the action, review of underlying contract, drafting of complaint and summons, drafting of motions, drafting of an objection to opposing motion, attending the arbitration meeting, preparation of trial, drafting a motion to reargue, and arguments at hearings and trial.
In my professional opinion, all of these services were reasonably necessary to secure a favorable result that was secured for my client. The total number of hours expended by the firm were 32.35 and the total monetary cost of said hours is $12, 841.00. Included in the 32.35 hours are 19.4 hours billed at a rate of $390 per hour, 9.15 hours billed at $400 per hour, and 3.8 hours billed at a rate of $425 per hour. In addition, we incurred costs of $705.60 as more particularly set forth in the Bill of Costs filed herewith.
Dkt. Entry 129.00.
O'Hara, who has filed an appeal of this court's decision on reconsideration, has not filed any opposition to the fee request.
" Reasonable" is generally the critical word in approaching an application for attorneys fees. Indeed, that is the word used in the " Staffing Agreement" which provides the contractual basis for the fees sought here. Trial Exhibit 1.
To calculate a reasonable fee, a trial court should consider the factors set forth in Rule 1.5(a) of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct which are:
(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(2) The likelihood, if made known to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by a lawyer;
(3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
(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 or lawyers performing the services; and
(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
See Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 259, 828 A.2d 64 and n.60. These factors are adopted from the decision of the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974) and found by the Connecticut Appellate court to be applicable in determining the reasonableness of fees. Conservation Commission of Fairfield v. Red 11, LLC, 135 Conn.App. 765, 786, 43 A.3d 244 (2013); Steiger v. J.S. Builders, Inc., 39 Conn.App. 32, 38, 663 A.2d 432 (1995); see also Rossman v. Morasco, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, CLD, X08 CV 010183603, (Adams J., July 31, 2006) (2006 WL 2422475) .
The initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys fees is properly calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonable expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate.
Conservation Commission of Fairfield v. Red II, supra, 135 Conn.App. 786.
The court finds that the time spent by R& W's attorney on this matter (32.25 hrs.) is very reasonable as it included investigation, pleading, a small amount of motion practice, trial preparation, trial and post-trial briefing. However, the court finds the hourly rate, ranging from $390 to $425 per hour to be unreasonably high. This finding is not based on any determination that Attorney Morgan, an experienced attorney, is not entitled to charge those rates in some cases, just not in this case. This was a collection action in many ways and much of the work could have been, and often is, performed by a less experienced attorney with a correspondingly lower hourly rate. This may be a harsh conclusion in this case, because the court believes, on somewhat incomplete information, that Attorney Morgan's law firm is a two-partner organization that does not employ younger associate attorneys. Still, " reasonableness, " while not a precise standard, is at least an objective one.
This court has approved fee applications involving hourly rates at $400 and above. See Rowe v. Rubin, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, CV 13 6018375, (February 26, 2016) (2016 WL 1038968); Heyman Associates No. 5, L.P. v. FelCor TRS Guarantor, L.P., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, CV 06 401052 (June 27, 2013) (2013 WL 3801971) . Both of the above cases involved complicated issues, extensive attorney preparation and an extended trial.
Focusing on the definition of Rule 1.5(a) of the Code of Professional Conduct, the court finds that a reasonable hourly fee relevant to the fee application in this case is $250 for Attorney Morgan. Applying that rate to the 32.35 hours set forth in the application, the court awards $8, 087.50 in attorneys fees to the plaintiff.