2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Team 46 v 64
CHUCK MAZE ON BEHALF OF 15
MINOR, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF
ALBANY, NEW YORK, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, New York
March 10, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
COUNSEL: Ashley Baudier and Mallery
Nargi, for Appellant.
Alex Mauro and Sarah Griffen, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Orr, Mazzeo, Jacobs, Cicerelli,
Kappel, Sutton
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New
York find in overall favor of the Respondent, the
City of Albany, New York. The Respondent
proved that the lower court abused its discretion
in determining Boardman’s fees under the
Loadstar method as outlined in the case of
Rahmey v. Blum. The Respondent proved that
Katie Boardman’s rate and the total fees paid
were not decreased adequately to account for
Katie Boardman’s lack of experience. The
Petitioners successfully proved, however, that
the fee should have been increased by an even
greater amount in light of the novelty of the
case. The Petitioner also proved per Flemming
v. Barnwell, the court does not have unlimited
discretion in manipulating fees and as such, a
30% decrease in attorney fees for interviewing
hours without explanation was not within the
jurisdiction of the court and is not permissible.
This case is centered on the Loadstar method for
attorney compensation in class action suits.
Under the Loadstar method in Rahmey v. Blum,
attorney compensation is calculated by
multiplying an attorney’s reasonable rate by a
reasonable number of hours, with adjustments as
necessary. Under the Loadstar method,
adjustments can be made for: (1) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions presented; (2) the skill
requisite to perform the legal services properly;
(3) the preclusion of the other employment by
the attorney due to the acceptance of the case;
(4) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (5)
time limitations imposed by the client or the
circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the
professional relationship with the client; (7) the
amount involved and the results obtained; (8) the
undesirability of the case; and (9) awards in
similar cases. The Petitioners successfully
proved that the novelty of this case was not
properly compensated for. The idea of a third
party being guilty for damages had never before
been heard in court and there is no other case
which it can be compared to, nor is there any
similar information on the topic. For that reason
the amount paid to Boardman of $50,000 on
account of novelty should be tripled to
$150,000. The Respondent, however, proved
that Katie Boardman should not have been paid
the hourly rate of the American Bar Association
of $300 for experienced lawyers because she
was a recent law school graduate without any
court experience aside from clerking. The Court
finds that the hourly rate requested by the
Respondent of $150 per hour is too low, but that
an hourly rate of $225 adequately acknowledges
that some level of skill is required in order to
win a class action suit as a first case. In
addition, the Court makes an additional
adjustment to the lower court’s Loadstar
analysis and increases the deduction for
Boardman’s first case from $50,000 to
$100,000.
The matter of Flemming v. Barnwell states that a
judge does have discretion in determining fee
and rate reductions for class action suits but that
discretion is not unlimited. Rahmey v. Blum
states a Judge must explain the reductions or
additions as specifically as possible. The
Petitioner demonstrated the Judge abused his
discretion by reducing the overall number of
hours by 30% without listing any specific
reasons. Therefore that 30% reduction in hours
should be removed from the calculations.
In total, Boardman’s final fees are calculated as
follows: $225 per hour for her 1780 hours, 500
hours at the rate of $150 for paralegal work, a
$150,000 increase for novelty and a $100,000
decrease for this having been Katie Boardman’s
first case. The 30% reduction is removed and all
other lower court adjustments are preserved.
Therefore this court orders the final
compensation for Katie Boardman in the amount
of $600,500.
75