Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. v. Scott
1989 Okla. LEXIS 125, 777 P.2d 394, 1989 OK 106 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The reasonableness of an attorney's fee is determined by a multi-factor analysis and cannot be based solely on the number of hours billed. Courts must weigh factors such as the complexity of the issues, the experience of the attorney, the results obtained, and the customary fee for similar services, rather than mechanically multiplying hours by a rate.
Facts:
- Robert L. Scott hired attorney Robert L. Wheeler to represent him in a lien foreclosure action initiated by United Oklahoma Bank.
- Over ten months, Wheeler's firm billed Scott for 1295.9 hours, totaling $140,116.87.
- A first-year associate, admitted to the bar for only five months, billed 853.5 of those hours at a rate of $110 per hour.
- The opposing counsel for the bank, a firm with three experienced attorneys, billed a total of 850 hours for a fee of $75,534.10.
- Two days before the hearing on the bank's motion for summary judgment, Wheeler threatened to withdraw if his outstanding fees were not paid.
- Wheeler sent the first-year associate to argue against the bank's motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently granted against Scott.
- After Wheeler withdrew as counsel, Scott retained a new attorney and settled the case with the bank.
Procedural Posture:
- United Oklahoma Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure action against Robert L. Scott in the trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank.
- Wheeler, Scott's former attorney, filed a separate action against Scott in the trial court to collect unpaid attorney fees.
- The trial court, after a hearing, reduced the fee Wheeler charged Scott from $140,116.87 to $125,723.00.
- Scott, as appellant, appealed the trial court's fee award to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted certiorari to review the reasonableness of the fee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an attorney's fee, even after a reduction by the trial court, still excessive when it is primarily based on a large number of hours billed by an inexperienced associate for a relatively simple case that resulted in an adverse summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, J.
Yes, the fee was still excessive. A reasonable attorney's fee requires a thorough balancing of the factors established in State ex rel. Burk, and cannot be determined by time alone. The trial court gave too much weight to the hours billed and failed to adequately consider other critical factors. These factors included the relative simplicity of the case, the gross disparity in hours and fees compared to the prevailing party's experienced counsel, the fact that an inexperienced first-year associate performed the majority of the work, and the ultimate result, which was a loss for the client on summary judgment. Simply multiplying hours by a rate places a premium on inefficiency and inexperience, which is contrary to the determination of a reasonable fee.
Dissenting - Simms, J.
No, the fee was not excessive. The dissent would deny certiorari, which would have the effect of affirming the trial court's award and finding the fee reasonable.
Concurring - Hodges, J.
Yes, the fee was excessive. The opinion concurs that the fee is excessive but dissents from the majority's decision to remand the case to the trial court. The author believes the Supreme Court should determine the proper amount of the attorney fee itself.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that the 'lodestar' method (hours times rate) is merely a starting point, not the conclusion, for determining reasonable attorney's fees. It strongly critiques billing practices that reward inefficiency or inexperience, establishing that courts must scrutinize the substance and value of legal work performed. The decision empowers clients to challenge fees that seem disproportionate to the complexity of the case, the experience of the lawyers, or the outcome achieved. For law firms, it serves as a crucial reminder to ensure that billing is conscientious and reflects genuine value, especially when staffing cases with junior associates.
