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

Team 48 v 55
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: Mikhail Lindsay and Alvin
Moreira, for Appellant.
Alana Narine, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole, Galusha,
Muthig
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New York
find in favor of the respondents in part and the
appellants in part. We remand the case to the trial
court to re-evaluate the award in accordance with this
opinion.
The attorney’s fees are calculated through the
lodestar method, as explained in Rahmey v. Blum.
The lodestar fee is computed by multiplying the
number of hours reasonably expanded on the
litigation by the reasonable hourly rate. According to
Flemming v. Barnwell Nursing Home we review the
trial court’s decision under the abuse of discretion
standard. According to Flemming, the
“determination as to the proper amount of an award
of [counsel] fees lies largely within the discretion of
the court, the discretion is not unlimited.” The 30%
reduction fee properly reduced the reward because of
the additional hours Katie had to spend in order to
learn how to prosecute a case. As for the hourly rate
we find that the 1,000 hours of interviews should be
charged at a $150 an hour rate. As stated in Rahmey
v. Blum “[it] is appropriate to distinguish between
legal work, in the strict sense, and investigation,
clerical work, complication of facts and statistics and
other work which can often be accomplished by nonlawyers
but which a lawyer may do because he has
no other help available. Such non-legal work may
command a lesser rate. Its dollar value is not
enhanced just because a lawyer does it.” Here Katie
did the work of a paralegal during the interviews, so
she should be paid as a paralegal.
the legal services properly; (3) the preclusion of other
employment by the attorney due to 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.” We find that the first lodestar adjustment, the
novelty of the case, should be increased even more
than $50,000 -- the amount that the Boardman’s
received. The novelty of this case is very high
because there has been no other case like this. The
second factor of the lodestar method addresses the
skill of the attorney. Judge Kheleher decreased the
amount awarded to Katie because of this fact, but it
should be decreased even more. The skill of Katie
was very low because this was her first case and she
just opened her own law firm. The third prong of the
lodestar fee is the preclusion of other employment.
Katie may have not taken another case because of the
difficulty of this one, or she could not find another
case because she is simply an inexperienced lawyer.
Thus, the trial court properly did not adjust the award
because of that factor. The fourth factor of the
lodestar method is whether the fee is fixed or
contingent. No money should be taken away from the
Boardman’s because of the fee being contingent.
Most cases like that are taken on a contingency fee;
therefore she was not entitled to extra money for that.
The sixth prong to the lodestar method is addressing
the relationship with the clients. In this case Katie
spent two years in contact with these 15 students and
30 parents. Contradicting this, Katie spent more time
with the 2,000 interviewed students. There will be no
adjustments to the fee for the relationship to the
clients. Number seven of the Lodestar method applies
to the results of the case. In Lunday v. City of Albany
it states that the seventh prong of the Lodestar
method is the most important. Here Judge Kheleher
decreased it $25,000 because the Plaintiff’s were
only awarded $46.22. This was not an abuse of
discretion. The final consideration is the desirability
of the case. This case is very desirable to Katie,
because she could be awarded a high amount of
attorney fees. Therefore we direct the lower court to
decrease the award because of the ninth factor.
In conclusion we the court after these adjustments we
have determined the final total the Boardman’s will
received will be reduced by the lower court on
remand.
Also, adjustments must be made to the fee. The nine
prongs are “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions presented; (2) the skill requisite to perform
76