pennsylvania
del
valley
citizens
council
argued
march
decided
june
delaware
valley
citizens
council
clean
air
hereafter
respondent
filed
suit
compel
pennsylvania
comply
certain
provisions
clean
air
act
act
see
earlier
decision
case
setting
forth
detailed
statement
facts
consent
decree
approved
federal
district
obligated
pennsylvania
establish
program
inspection
maintenance
vehicle
emissions
systems
certain
counties
august
state
failed
protracted
litigation
ensued
parties
agreed
set
june
date
state
commence
program
shortly
agreement
respondent
petitioned
district
attorney
fees
costs
pursuant
act
work
performed
issuance
consent
decree
divided
work
phases
determined
lodestar
amount
attorney
fees
product
reasonable
hours
times
reasonable
rate
phase
certain
phases
adjusted
figure
upward
doubling
lodestar
reflect
risk
presumably
faced
respondent
prevail
phases
litigation
appeals
affirmed
district
enhancement
fee
award
issue
presented
whether
plaintiff
prevails
attorney
contingent
fee
arrangement
may
awarded
separate
compensation
risk
losing
paid
held
judgment
reversed
reversed
justice
white
joined
chief
justice
justice
powell
justice
scalia
concluded
construed
permitting
enhancement
reasonable
lodestar
fee
compensate
attorney
assuming
risk
loss
nonpayment
even
construed
permit
enhancement
appropriate
cases
error
case
pp
justice
concluded
congress
intend
foreclose
consideration
contingency
setting
reasonable
fee
provisions
district
erred
employing
risk
multiplier
circumstances
case
pp
justice
blackmun
joined
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
stevens
concluded
congress
intended
allow
upward
adjustment
appropriate
circumstances
case
taken
contingent
basis
award
case
vacated
case
remanded
district
findings
pp
jay
waldman
reargued
cause
petitioners
briefs
reargument
henry
barr
john
krill
john
hrubovcak
briefs
original
argument
spencer
manthorpe
barr
hrubovcak
krill
donald
ayer
reargued
cause
respondent
rule
support
petitioners
kathryn
oberly
argued
cause
original
argument
brief
solicitor
general
fried
henry
habicht
ii
deputy
solicitor
general
geller
james
crawford
reargued
cause
respondents
brief
joyce
meyers
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
american
bar
association
eugene
thomas
john
hupper
thomas
barr
john
pickering
joseph
bonjorno
et
al
henry
reath
michael
baylson
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
state
arizona
et
al
francis
bellotti
attorney
general
massachusetts
suzanne
durrell
assistant
attorney
general
robert
corbin
attorney
general
arizona
joseph
lieberman
attorney
general
connecticut
michael
bowers
attorney
general
georgia
richard
opper
attorney
general
guam
corinne
watanabe
attorney
general
hawaii
jim
jones
attorney
general
idaho
neil
hartigan
attorney
general
illinois
linley
pearson
attorney
general
indiana
david
armstrong
attorney
general
kentucky
william
guste
attorney
general
louisiana
james
tierney
attorney
general
maine
stephen
sachs
attorney
general
maryland
frank
kelley
attorney
general
michigan
louis
caruso
solicitor
general
edward
lloyd
pittman
attorney
general
mississippi
william
webster
attorney
general
missouri
stephen
merrill
attorney
general
new
hampshire
lacy
thornburg
attorney
general
north
carolina
nicholas
spaeth
attorney
general
north
dakota
anthony
celebrezze
attorney
general
ohio
michael
turpen
attorney
general
oklahoma
travis
medlock
attorney
general
south
carolina
jeffrey
amestoy
attorney
general
vermont
william
broaddus
attorney
general
virginia
kenneth
eikenberry
attorney
general
washington
charles
brown
attorney
general
west
virginia
mcclintock
attorney
general
wyoming
twelve
small
private
civil
rights
law
firms
john
leubsdorf
justice
white
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
parts
ii
represent
views
parts
iv
joined
chief
justice
justice
powell
justice
scalia
case
involves
award
attorney
fee
prevailing
party
pursuant
clean
air
act
set
forth
detailed
statement
facts
underlying
litigation
pennsylvania
delaware
valley
citizens
council
clean
air
recite
abbreviated
version
facts
delaware
valley
citizens
council
clean
air
hereinafter
respondent
filed
suit
compel
commonwealth
pennsylvania
comply
certain
provisions
clean
air
act
parties
entered
consent
decree
approved
district
obligated
commonwealth
establish
program
inspection
maintenance
vehicle
emissions
systems
counties
philadelphia
pittsburgh
areas
august
commonwealth
failed
implement
program
date
protracted
litigation
ensued
ultimately
may
parties
agreed
set
june
date
commonwealth
commence
inspection
maintenance
program
shortly
agreement
respondent
petitioned
district
attorney
fees
costs
work
performed
issuance
consent
decree
determining
amount
fees
awarded
district
divided
work
performed
respondent
counsel
nine
phases
see
computing
lodestar
phase
district
adjusted
figure
upward
phases
four
five
seven
doubling
lodestar
reflect
risk
presumably
faced
respondent
prevail
phases
litigation
district
observed
contingent
nature
plaintiff
success
apparent
throughout
litigation
plaintiffs
entered
litigation
government
commonwealth
pennsylvania
case
involved
new
novel
issues
resolution
little
precedent
laintiffs
defend
rights
consent
decree
due
numerous
attempts
defendants
others
overturn
circumvent
orders
supp
ii
first
focus
nature
issue
us
typical
statute
attorney
fees
awarded
prevailing
party
extent
party
prevails
see
maher
gagne
hensley
eckerhart
hence
case
lost
loser
awarded
fee
unless
attorney
agreement
client
attorney
paid
win
lose
attorney
paid
cases
attorney
assumes
risk
nonpayment
takes
case
issue
us
whether
plaintiff
prevails
attorney
may
awarded
separate
compensation
assuming
risk
paid
risk
measured
risk
losing
rather
winning
depends
unsettled
applicable
law
respect
issues
posed
case
likely
facts
decided
complainant
looked
way
various
factors
little
bearing
question
us
first
matter
delay
plaintiffs
entitlement
attorney
fees
depends
success
lawyers
paid
favorable
decision
finally
eventuates
may
years
later
case
meanwhile
expenses
business
continue
must
met
setting
fees
prevailing
counsel
courts
regularly
recognized
delay
factor
either
basing
award
current
rates
adjusting
fee
based
historical
rates
reflect
present
value
see
sierra
club
epa
app
louisville
black
police
officers
organization
louisville
although
delay
risk
nonpayment
often
mentioned
breath
adjusting
former
distinct
issue
involved
case
suggest
however
adjustments
delay
inconsistent
typical
statute
second
case
involves
issue
public
importance
plaintiff
position
unpopular
community
defendant
difficult
obstreperous
enter
assessing
risk
loss
determining
whether
risk
compensated
neither
chance
find
unnecessary
compensate
time
effort
spent
prosecuting
case
third
plaintiff
agreed
pay
attorney
win
lose
attorney
assumed
risk
nonpayment
occasion
adjust
lodestar
fee
case
risky
one
see
jones
central
soya
said
lawyer
may
preserve
right
recourse
client
fees
still
expect
compensated
sacrificed
completely
right
payment
event
unsuccessful
outcome
iii
although
issue
compensating
assuming
risk
nonpayment
left
open
blum
stenson
justice
brennan
wrote
risk
prevailing
therefore
risk
recovering
attorney
fees
proper
basis
district
may
award
upward
adjustment
otherwise
compensatory
fee
concurring
courts
appeals
similar
view
allowed
upward
adjustment
fee
awards
risk
loss
factor
first
circuit
wildman
lerner
stores
example
takes
approach
allows
upward
adjustment
lodestar
account
contingency
factor
case
district
entered
judgment
jury
verdict
finding
employer
liable
violating
age
discrimination
employment
act
et
two
puerto
rican
statutes
awarded
prevailing
party
lodestar
fee
amount
increased
figure
account
fact
difficulties
action
novelty
issue
plaintiffs
attorneys
faced
contingency
losing
time
effort
sustaining
enhancement
fee
awards
based
contingency
appeals
relied
legislative
history
detailed
several
additional
reasons
necessary
increase
lodestar
figure
cases
concluded
rather
compensating
lawyers
unsuccessful
claims
adjustment
lodestar
figure
may
necessary
particular
cases
provide
reasonable
attorney
fee
envisioned
congress
construction
statutes
universal
district
columbia
circuit
particularly
skeptical
purpose
served
enhancing
lodestar
amount
account
risk
prevailing
laffey
northwest
airlines
app
cert
denied
reversed
trial
decision
double
lodestar
based
risk
factor
citing
wide
variety
problems
approach
found
theory
limit
size
fee
risk
enhancement
permitted
less
likely
chances
success
particular
case
entitled
prevailing
party
fee
award
reflect
acceptance
risk
similar
vein
contingency
factor
penalizes
losing
parties
strongest
reasonable
defenses
thus
creating
perverse
penalty
least
culpable
app
moreover
even
risk
loss
taken
account
chances
winning
set
anything
approaching
mathematical
precision
vast
increases
attorneys
fees
derive
spurious
mathematical
base
omitted
fundamental
level
found
using
risk
loss
increase
lodestar
figure
compensates
attorneys
successful
efforts
one
case
unsuccessful
claims
asserted
related
cases
encourag
es
marginal
litigation
raises
reasonable
question
subsidy
unsuccessful
litigation
come
defendant
another
case
citations
omitted
scheme
deemed
manifestly
inconsistent
congress
intent
award
attorney
fees
prevailing
parties
relying
holding
hensley
attorney
fees
awarded
claims
unrelated
party
ultimately
prevailed
reasoned
logic
restricts
compensation
portions
lawsuit
directly
related
relief
procured
also
forbids
multiplying
attorneys
fees
effectively
compensate
counsel
losing
claims
may
brought
prevailing
party
may
expect
full
compensation
prevailing
claims
provision
compensating
losing
unrelated
claims
case
losing
cases
might
might
involve
parties
crude
multiplier
derived
simply
plaintiff
chance
success
must
rejected
contrary
congressional
scheme
bar
legal
commentators
much
interested
issue
writers
unqualifiedly
endorsed
concept
increasing
fee
award
insure
lawyers
adequately
compensated
taking
risk
prevailing
experience
marketplace
indicates
lawyers
generally
provide
legal
representation
contingent
basis
unless
receive
premium
taking
risk
berger
awarded
attorneys
fees
reasonable
rev
see
also
developments
law
class
actions
harv
rev
comment
rev
others
considerably
reserved
endorsement
contingency
bonus
focusing
four
major
problems
use
factor
first
evaluation
risk
loss
creates
potential
conflict
interest
attorney
client
order
increase
fee
award
plaintiff
lawyer
must
expose
weaknesses
inconsistencies
client
case
defendant
attorneys
must
either
concede
strength
plaintiff
case
order
keep
fee
award
allo
fee
boosted
contingency
bonus
insisting
plaintiff
victory
freakish
leubsdorf
contingency
factor
attorney
fee
awards
yale
leubsdorf
second
order
determine
proper
size
contingency
bonus
must
retroactively
estimate
prevailing
party
chances
success
perspective
attorney
first
considered
filing
suit
mathematically
difficult
compute
result
known
hard
judges
lawyers
regain
perspective
ignorance
treat
result
one
several
initially
possible
third
problem
increasing
fee
award
account
risk
prevailing
one
identified
courts
questioned
practice
penalizes
defendant
strongest
defense
forces
subsidize
plaintiff
attorney
bringing
unsuccessful
actions
defendants
see
note
colum
rev
finally
contingency
bonus
determined
either
certainty
accuracy
justified
ground
provides
appropriate
incentive
litigation
leubsdorf
cf
note
harv
rev
comment
chi
rev
considerations
removes
interest
paying
client
ensuring
lawyer
serving
client
economically
task
monitoring
attorney
shifted
judge
separate
litigation
fees
plaintiff
wins
fee
litigation
occurs
basis
often
protracted
complicated
exhausting
little
doubt
simplified
maximum
extent
possible
decided
cases
measure
assessing
initial
risk
loss
case
particularly
uncertain
matter
especially
judge
confident
correctly
decided
plaintiff
must
inquire
weak
plaintiff
case
likely
judge
mistaken
may
absurd
ask
judge
determine
probability
decided
case
incorrectly
disagreement
among
circuits
commentators
indicates
congress
clearly
directed
authorized
multipliers
enhancements
assuming
risk
loss
neither
clean
air
act
expressly
provides
using
risk
loss
independent
basis
increasing
otherwise
reasonable
fee
doubtful
legislative
history
supports
use
factor
concluding
authorized
justice
brennan
blum
relied
fact
one
items
relied
setting
fee
enumerated
johnson
georgia
highway
express
whether
fee
fixed
contingent
congress
endorsed
consideration
factor
see
rep
careful
reading
johnson
shows
contingency
factor
meant
focus
judicial
scrutiny
solely
existence
contract
attorney
fees
may
executed
party
attorney
fee
quoted
client
percentage
recovery
agreed
helpful
demonstrating
attorney
fee
expectations
accepted
case
see
leubsdorf
therefore
johnson
suggests
nature
fee
contract
client
attorney
taken
account
determining
reasonableness
fee
award
nothing
johnson
show
factor
meant
reflect
contingent
nature
prevailing
lawsuit
whole
justice
brennan
also
noted
congress
cited
stanford
daily
zurcher
nd
cal
subsequently
aff
rev
grounds
one
several
cases
correctly
applied
johnson
factors
blum
supra
increased
lodestar
based
part
considerations
congress
also
cited
two
cases
found
also
correctly
applied
johnson
criteria
davis
county
los
angeles
epd
cd
cal
district
added
result
charge
basic
fee
award
award
intended
compensate
lawyers
assuming
risk
prevailing
merits
instead
label
suggests
increased
award
counsel
achieved
excellent
results
nature
case
made
difficult
litigate
swann
bd
wdnc
third
illustrative
case
cited
approval
congress
increase
basic
fee
award
instead
reviewing
nine
factors
similar
listed
johnson
reduced
prevailing
party
fee
request
nearly
choosing
err
conservative
side
dealing
fee
question
rather
contribute
unnecessarily
overpricing
litigation
given
divergence
analysis
result
three
cases
legislative
history
best
inconclusive
determining
whether
congress
endorsed
concept
increasing
lodestar
amount
reflect
risk
prevailing
merits
must
nevertheless
come
decision
concluded
judgment
must
reversed
iv
impressed
view
appeals
district
columbia
circuit
enhancing
fees
risk
loss
forces
losing
defendants
compensate
plaintiff
lawyers
prevailing
defendants
cases
result
consistent
congress
decision
adopt
rule
prevailing
parties
entitled
fees
risk
multipliers
enhancement
viewed
compensating
attorneys
willingness
take
risk
loss
nonpayment
nevertheless
sure
congress
intended
fees
denied
plaintiff
loses
authorized
payment
assuming
risk
uncompensated
loss
enhancement
also
penalizes
defendants
strongest
case
theory
least
authorize
highest
fees
cases
least
likely
hence
encourage
bringing
risky
cases
especially
lawyers
whose
time
fully
occupied
work
difficult
ever
completely
sure
case
enhancing
fees
assumption
risk
nonpayment
justify
degree
enhancement
almost
every
case
weighing
considerations
unconvinced
congress
intended
risk
losing
lawsuit
independent
basis
increasing
amount
otherwise
reasonable
fee
time
effort
expended
prevailing
senate
report
observed
computing
fee
counsel
prevailing
parties
paid
traditional
attorneys
compensated
client
time
reasonably
expended
matter
davis
supra
stanford
daily
supra
contrary
argument
without
promise
multipliers
enhancement
attorneys
take
cases
clients
pay
statutes
therefore
serve
purpose
agree
fundamental
aim
statutes
make
possible
pay
lawyer
time
effort
obtain
competent
counsel
providing
lawyers
reasonable
fees
paid
losing
defendants
follow
fee
enhancement
risk
necessary
allowable
surely
case
plaintiffs
afford
pay
agreed
pay
win
lose
true
plaintiff
impecunious
otherwise
damages
case
competent
lawyers
take
absence
statutes
true
cases
plaintiffs
secure
help
organizations
whose
purpose
provide
legal
help
salaried
counsel
afford
pay
lawyer
also
unlikely
true
market
competent
lawyers
whose
time
fully
occupied
matters
issue
thus
involves
damages
cases
lawyers
take
risky
statutes
encourage
suits
brought
damages
likely
recovered
sufficient
provide
adequate
compensation
counsel
well
frequent
cases
goal
secure
injunctive
relief
exclusion
claim
damages
situations
statutes
guarantee
reasonable
payment
time
effort
expended
case
respondent
position
without
prospect
awarded
fees
exceeding
reasonable
payment
plaintiffs
cases
unable
secure
help
statutes
aimed
provide
persuaded
case
indeed
may
well
using
contingency
enhancement
superfluous
unnecessary
lodestar
approach
setting
fee
reasons
particular
lawsuit
considered
risky
attorney
novelty
difficulty
issues
presented
potential
protracted
litigation
moreover
attorney
ultimately
prevails
lawsuit
success
primarily
attributable
legal
skills
experience
hours
hard
work
devoted
case
factors
however
considered
determining
reasonable
number
hours
expended
reasonable
hourly
rate
lodestar
increase
sum
based
risk
prevailing
result
reasonable
attorney
fee
windfall
attorney
prevailed
difficult
case
may
without
promise
risk
enhancement
lawyers
decline
take
cases
doubt
bar
general
often
unable
respond
goal
statutes
achieved
event
risk
enhancement
involves
difficulties
administration
possible
inequities
must
pay
attorney
fees
absence
legislative
guidance
conclude
multipliers
enhancement
reasonable
lodestar
fee
compensate
assuming
risk
loss
impermissible
usual
statutes
even
typical
statutes
construed
permit
supplementing
lodestar
appropriate
cases
paying
counsel
assuming
risk
nonpayment
reasons
set
error
case
section
like
indicate
adjustment
risk
rule
rather
exception
neither
require
adjustment
case
leaves
matter
risk
enhancement
informed
discretion
courts
however
severe
difficulties
possible
inequities
involved
making
upward
adjustments
assuming
risk
nonpayment
deem
appropriate
order
guide
exercise
trial
courts
discretion
awarding
fees
adopt
approach
followed
blum
dealing
multipliers
case
payment
time
effort
involved
lodestar
presumed
reasonable
fee
authorized
statute
enhancement
risk
nonpayment
reserved
exceptional
cases
need
justification
enhancement
readily
apparent
supported
evidence
record
specific
findings
courts
blum
several
reasons
circumstances
case
justify
risk
multiplier
employed
district
first
district
doubled
lodestar
three
phases
case
recognition
risk
loss
saying
contingent
nature
plaintiffs
success
apparent
outset
plaintiffs
entered
litigation
commonwealth
pennsylvania
case
involved
new
novel
issues
resolution
little
precedent
furthermore
defend
rights
consent
decree
due
numerous
attempts
defendants
others
overturn
circumvent
orders
case
however
concerns
reasonable
fee
work
done
consent
decree
entered
fees
already
awarded
work
done
time
risk
nonpayment
determined
beginning
litigation
lewis
coughlin
ramos
lamm
whatever
counsel
thought
risk
losing
outset
doubtful
counsel
anticipated
similar
risk
enforcing
decree
plaintiff
successful
one
entered
event
district
specifically
identify
new
novel
issues
fail
discern
emerged
long
process
enforcing
decree
accordance
terms
whether
commonwealth
pennsylvania
substantial
opponent
whether
tried
circumvent
decree
little
nothing
whether
real
risk
persuading
district
enforce
decree
matter
may
difficult
wearing
time
consuming
kind
effort
recognized
lodestar
award
second
assumed
one
exceptional
cases
enhancement
assuming
risk
nonpayment
justified
conclude
doubling
lodestar
certain
phases
work
excessive
alluded
uncertainties
involved
determining
risk
prevailing
burdensome
nature
fee
litigation
deem
desirable
appropriate
application
statute
hold
trial
specifically
finds
real
issue
case
upward
adjustment
lodestar
may
made
general
rule
amount
lodestar
additional
adjustment
require
exacting
justification
limitation
protect
windfalls
attorneys
act
deterrence
bringing
suits
attorney
believes
less
chance
prevailing
riskier
suits
may
brought
reasonable
lodestar
may
awarded
risk
enhancement
limited
lodestar
awarded
even
assuming
adjustment
risk
justified
multiplier
employed
excessive
third
whatever
risk
winning
losing
specific
case
might
fee
award
informed
statutory
purpose
making
possible
poor
clients
good
claims
secure
competent
help
adjusting
risk
assumption
evidence
record
trial
find
without
risk
enhancement
plaintiff
faced
substantial
difficulties
finding
counsel
local
relevant
market
findings
accordingly
judgment
appeals
reversed
footnotes
issuing
final
order
action
brought
pursuant
subsection
section
may
award
costs
litigation
including
reasonable
attorney
expert
witness
fees
party
whenever
determines
award
appropriate
time
respondent
awarded
attorney
fee
work
done
counsel
public
interest
law
center
philadelphia
pilcop
prior
date
consent
decree
granted
certiorari
last
term
heard
argument
issued
opinion
holding
respondent
entitled
attorney
fees
counsel
work
done
certain
administrative
proceedings
work
crucial
vindication
delaware
valley
rights
consent
decree
also
concluded
district
erred
enhancing
fee
award
based
superior
quality
counsel
performance
reasoning
respondent
show
lodestar
provide
reasonable
fee
award
reflecting
quality
representation
however
address
merits
question
us
issue
left
open
blum
stenson
thought
reargument
issue
beneficial
therefore
restored
aspect
case
docket
decision
term
numerous
courts
appeals
acting
statutes
approved
upward
adjustment
lodestar
compensate
risk
prevailing
see
crumbaker
merit
systems
protection
board
ca
fed
vaughns
board
ed
prince
georges
county
supp
md
riddell
national
democratic
party
kelley
metropolitan
county
bd
en
banc
cert
denied
craik
minnesota
state
university
white
richmond
ramos
lamm
jones
central
soya
addition
courts
appeals
district
columbia
circuit
seventh
circuit
courts
refused
risk
enhancement
variety
reasons
see
lewis
coughlin
upward
adjustment
vacated
failure
evaluate
risk
loss
lanasa
new
orleans
supp
ed
la
settlement
low
money
damages
figure
agreed
much
earlier
litigation
littlejohn
null
mfg
supp
wdnc
attorney
received
fully
compensatory
fee
without
adjustment
bennett
central
telephone
illinois
supp
nd
lack
supporting
evidence
high
hourly
rates
eeoc
burlington
northern
supp
nd
high
hourly
rates
risk
nonsuccess
unusually
high
litton
systems
american
telephone
telegraph
supp
sdny
great
incentive
needed
encourage
appellee
defend
million
antitrust
judgment
appeal
cook
block
supp
dc
counsel
guaranteed
payment
client
even
suit
unsuccessful
cherry
rockdale
county
supp
nd
insufficient
evidence
supporting
adjustment
inmates
maine
state
prison
zitnay
supp
contingency
already
reflected
lodestar
rank
balshy
supp
md
contingency
already
reflected
lodestar
viewed
simple
economics
practice
law
played
major
part
appeals
analysis
lodestar
figure
alone
differentiate
case
taken
full
retainer
case
attorney
spends
many
hours
period
months
years
assurance
pay
suit
unsuccessful
even
client
ultimately
prevails
burden
supporting
salaried
employees
fixed
costs
course
contingent
litigation
substantial
moreover
attorney
may
face
second
risk
clients
prevailed
find
time
duplicative
unnecessary
inefficiently
expended
think
clear
congress
intend
enforcement
civil
rights
limited
primarily
able
pay
attorney
full
retainer
attract
one
pro
bono
legal
service
organizations
cause
deny
considerations
added
burden
additional
risks
attorney
contingent
fee
agreement
may
bear
strike
us
reasonable
citations
omitted
note
factors
mentioned
appeals
mind
irrelevant
whether
separate
compensation
assuming
risk
nonpayment
seventh
circuit
ruled
risk
losing
alone
justify
use
multiplier
mckinnon
berwyn
citations
omitted
followed
reasoning
laffey
northwest
airlines
app
finding
fundamental
problem
risk
bonus
compensates
attorneys
indirectly
effectively
bringing
unsuccessful
suits
even
though
attorney
fee
statute
expressly
limited
cases
party
seeking
fee
prevails
also
reasoned
cases
attorney
entered
contract
client
attorney
already
compensated
risk
loss
entitled
insurance
form
risk
multiplier
mattress
mfg
sealy
kirchoff
flynn
may
evidence
withdrawal
position
still
later
case
appeals
citing
mckinnon
said
circuit
favored
use
risk
multipliers
burlington
northern
hearings
congressional
subcommittee
also
illuminate
differing
views
desirability
necessity
enhancement
risk
loss
hearings
subcommittee
constitution
committee
judiciary
sess
hearings
et
al
subcommittee
constitution
committee
judiciary
sess
similar
vein
want
encourage
private
attorney
general
suits
risky
plaintiffs
test
litigation
claims
nonmonetary
relief
forbidding
shifting
compensation
risk
deter
bringing
cases
rowe
legal
theory
attorney
fee
shifting
critical
overview
duke
district
employed
interesting
approach
denying
risk
multiplier
cherry
rockdale
county
noted
risk
enhancement
justified
needed
provide
compensation
sufficient
level
attract
capable
advocates
evidence
proffered
showing
level
compensation
necessary
attract
lawyers
insufficient
evidentiary
base
upon
award
fee
enhancement
argued
way
illustration
case
evidence
support
risk
multiplier
according
national
survey
access
two
attorneys
requesting
fees
paid
rate
top
law
firm
partners
admitted
time
paid
earn
respectively
per
year
associates
annual
salaries
survey
showed
practitioners
small
firms
average
overhead
expense
per
lawyer
assumed
reasonably
diligent
lawyer
bill
hours
per
year
hours
per
week
multiplied
weeks
relied
parties
affidavits
stated
reasonable
hourly
wage
attorneys
concluded
attorneys
lost
cases
year
compensation
still
within
upper
compensation
lawyers
minus
uncollectible
minus
overhead
equals
enhancement
observed
simply
unnecessary
lawyers
lost
cases
year
enhancement
might
necessary
compensation
based
loss
rate
note
argument
advanced
amici
arizona
et
dealt
parties
courts
attorneys
respondent
pilcop
properly
accorded
weight
whatsoever
perceived
risk
prevailing
deciding
undertake
representation
case
due
pilcop
status
internal
revenue
code
brief
arizona
et
al
amici
curiae
fee
petition
district
pilcop
asserted
tax
exempt
law
corporation
prohibited
certain
internal
revenue
service
irs
regulations
accepting
fees
clients
including
respondent
app
pilcop
undoubtedly
referring
rev
proc
cum
bull
provides
public
interest
law
firm
desiring
status
may
accept
fees
services
except
accordance
procedures
approved
irs
subsequently
irs
issued
rev
proc
cum
bull
amplified
rev
proc
setting
forth
procedures
public
interest
law
firm
accept
fees
services
maintain
charitable
organization
status
procedures
included
requirement
among
others
public
interest
law
firm
use
likelihood
probability
fee
award
consideration
selection
cases
argument
advanced
law
firm
really
risks
nothing
cases
like
pilcop
undertook
represent
respondent
cause
without
regard
likelihood
eventually
recovering
fees
clean
air
act
follows
pilcop
validly
entertained
notion
respondent
ultimately
succeed
litigation
fee
award
possibly
enhanced
due
risk
prevailing
amici
note
appeals
second
circuit
allow
contingency
multiplier
awarding
fees
nonprofit
law
firms
new
york
assn
retarded
children
carey
pass
submission
amici
test
objective
one
based
likely
response
bar
case
merits
rather
judge
subjective
opinion
merits
lewis
coughlin
attorney
fee
award
large
necessary
attract
competent
counsel
one
relevant
factor
bearing
whether
counsel
declined
take
case
little
prospect
earning
fee
lewis
coughlin
supra
justice
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
reasons
explained
dissent
conclude
congress
intend
foreclose
consideration
contingency
setting
reasonable
fee
provisions
clean
air
act
civil
rights
attorney
fees
awards
act
also
agree
compensation
contingency
must
based
difference
market
treatment
contingent
fee
cases
class
rather
assessment
riskiness
particular
case
view
plurality
also
correct
holding
novelty
difficulty
issues
presented
potential
protracted
litigation
ante
factors
adequately
reflected
lodestar
district
erred
employing
risk
multiplier
circumstances
case
private
market
commonly
compensates
contingency
arrangements
attorney
receives
percentage
damages
awarded
plaintiff
cases
however
private
market
model
contingency
compensation
provide
little
guidance
see
riverside
rivera
thus
unsurprising
courts
enhanced
fee
awards
compensate
risk
inpointing
degree
risk
one
subjective
difficult
components
fee
computation
process
one
apt
lead
imprecision
final
award
derfner
wolf
awarded
attorney
fees
although
dissent
suggests
method
calculating
compensation
contingency
theoretically
satisfying
practice
speculating
riskiness
case
dissent
explain
theory
put
practice
example
translate
extra
economic
risk
endured
smaller
firms
see
post
firms
take
unpopular
cases
see
post
percentage
enhancement
moreover
although
dissent
offers
defense
method
compensating
risk
leaves
door
open
extra
enhancement
exceptional
cases
pose
great
legal
risk
post
extra
enhancement
presumably
calculated
based
likelihood
time
litigation
commenced
particular
legal
claims
raised
prevailing
party
rejected
type
enhancement
clearly
subject
many
difficulties
described
plurality
ante
dissent
suggests
plurality
objections
lose
much
force
cases
extra
enhancement
granted
rare
post
arbitrary
unjust
result
less
rarity
furthermore
difficulties
created
type
enhancement
arise
enhancement
granted
also
whenever
sought
reasonable
method
calculating
fee
award
must
merely
justifiable
theory
also
objective
nonarbitrary
practice
moreover
concept
treating
contingency
cases
class
symbolic
determination
market
community
compensates
contingency
vary
significantly
one
case
next
agree
plurality
without
guidance
trial
exercise
discretion
adjustment
risk
result
severe
difficulties
possible
inequities
ante
view
certain
constraints
discretion
setting
attorney
fees
appropriate
first
district
courts
courts
appeals
treat
determination
particular
market
compensates
contingency
controlling
future
cases
involving
market
haphazard
widely
divergent
compensation
risk
avoided
contingency
cases
treated
class
contingency
cases
treated
class
courts
strive
consistency
one
fee
determination
next
determinations
involving
different
markets
also
comport
thus
fee
applicant
attempts
prove
relevant
market
provides
greater
compensation
contingency
markets
involved
previous
cases
applicant
able
point
differences
markets
justify
different
rates
compensation
second
times
fee
applicant
bears
burden
proving
degree
relevant
market
compensates
contingency
see
blum
stenson
burden
proving
adjustment
necessary
determination
reasonable
fee
fee
applicant
hensley
eckerhart
settlement
possible
fee
applicant
bears
burden
establishing
entitlement
award
documenting
appropriate
hours
expended
hourly
rates
also
hold
may
enhance
fee
award
necessary
bring
fee
within
range
attract
competent
counsel
agree
plurality
enhancement
risk
appropriate
unless
applicant
establish
without
adjustment
risk
prevailing
party
faced
substantial
difficulties
finding
counsel
local
relevant
market
ante
finally
award
enhancement
based
legal
risks
risks
peculiar
case
lodestar
product
reasonable
hours
times
reasonable
rate
hensley
eckerhart
supra
flexible
enough
account
great
variation
nature
work
performed
challenges
presented
different
cases
novelty
complexity
issues
raised
case
presumably
fully
reflected
number
billable
hours
recorded
counsel
blum
said
problems
posed
litigation
tenacity
defendant
special
skill
experience
counsel
reflected
reasonableness
hourly
rates
ibid
thus
presumed
counsel
demonstrates
considerable
ability
overcoming
unusual
difficulties
arisen
case
counsel
compensated
accomplishments
means
appropriate
hourly
rate
multiplied
hours
expended
based
guidelines
enhancement
risk
awarded
district
case
must
reversed
enhancement
supported
findings
fact
concerning
degree
contingency
compensated
relevant
market
neither
findings
evidence
indicate
large
enhancements
case
necessary
attract
competent
counsel
relevant
community
moreover
clear
district
based
enhancement
legal
risks
risks
unique
case
considerations
used
district
justify
enhancement
new
novel
issues
raised
case
stubbornness
defendants
supp
already
reflected
number
hours
expended
hourly
rate
used
increase
fee
award
accordingly
concur
parts
ii
plurality
concur
judgment
reversing
judgment
appeals
justice
blackmun
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
enacting
statutes
congress
stressed
fee
awarded
must
adequate
attract
competent
counsel
produce
windfalls
attorneys
today
plurality
ignores
fact
fee
may
appropriate
amount
paid
promptly
regardless
outcome
case
may
inadequate
inappropriate
payment
contingent
upon
winning
case
allowing
upward
adjustment
case
taken
contingent
basis
plurality
undermines
basic
purpose
statutory
attorney
fees
ensuring
private
citizens
meaningful
opportunity
vindicate
important
congressional
policies
laws
contain
private
market
lawyers
charge
premium
entire
fee
contingent
winning
canons
professional
ethics
american
bar
association
first
promulgated
recognized
determining
amount
fee
proper
consider
contingency
certainty
compensation
canons
ethics
aba
model
code
professional
responsibility
originally
promulgated
subsequently
adopted
nearly
every
state
see
nix
whiteside
likewise
provides
one
actors
considered
determining
reasonable
fee
hether
fee
fixed
contingent
model
code
professional
responsibility
dr
aba
recently
formulated
ethical
standards
aba
model
rules
professional
conduct
adopted
continue
reflect
consensus
among
lawyers
whether
fee
fixed
contingent
one
factors
considered
determining
reasonableness
fee
model
rule
premium
added
contingency
compensates
risk
nonpayment
suit
succeed
delay
payment
end
litigation
factors
faced
lawyer
paid
promptly
litigation
progresses
see
clermont
currivan
improving
contingent
fee
cornell
rev
schwartz
mitchell
economic
analysis
contingent
fee
litigation
stan
rev
mackinnon
contingent
fees
legal
services
else
equal
attorneys
naturally
prefer
cases
paid
regardless
outcome
rather
cases
paid
win
cases
latter
type
inherently
riskier
attorney
properly
may
expect
greater
compensation
successful
prosecution
see
lindy
builders
american
radiator
standard
sanitary
one
expects
lawyer
whose
compensation
contingent
upon
success
charge
successful
little
charge
client
advance
agreed
pay
services
regardless
success
quoting
cherner
transitron
electronic
supp
mass
wildman
lerner
stores
significant
difference
case
taken
full
retainer
case
attorney
spends
many
hours
period
months
years
assurance
pay
suit
unsuccessful
see
also
larson
federal
awards
attorney
fees
private
market
premium
contingency
usually
recouped
basing
fee
percentage
damages
recovered
premium
also
computed
part
hourly
rate
lawyer
bills
litigation
succeeds
see
clermont
currivan
cornell
see
alternative
contingent
fee
utah
rev
either
approach
fee
hourly
rate
contingent
success
necessarily
higher
hourly
rate
charged
payment
current
certain
fee
enhancement
ensures
accepting
cases
contingent
basis
remains
economically
attractive
feasible
enterprise
lawyers
see
generally
mackinnon
directing
courts
award
reasonable
attorney
fee
litigant
vindicates
various
statutory
rights
clean
air
act
congress
made
clear
winning
lawyer
paid
rate
basically
competitive
lawyer
able
earn
cases
congress
purpose
extensively
described
legislative
history
civil
rights
attorney
fees
awards
act
fully
applicable
statutes
protect
environment
see
ruckelshaus
sierra
club
encourage
enforcement
federal
law
lawsuits
filed
private
persons
congress
found
market
provide
adequate
supply
interested
lawyers
many
potential
plaintiffs
lacked
sufficient
funds
hire
lawyers
see
thus
fee
awards
considered
essential
remedy
order
encourage
enforcement
law
ibid
unless
fee
reimbursement
full
complete
statutory
rights
meaningless
remain
largely
unenforced
see
also
note
promoting
vindication
civil
rights
attorney
fees
awards
act
colum
rev
berger
awarded
attorney
fees
reasonable
rev
congress
determined
public
best
served
award
fees
similar
traditional
attorneys
compensated
client
intended
amount
fees
awarded
governed
standards
prevail
types
equally
complex
federal
litigation
antitrust
cases
reduced
rights
involved
may
nonpecuniary
nature
ibid
see
also
thus
blum
stenson
emphasized
statute
legislative
history
establish
reasonable
fees
calculated
according
prevailing
market
rates
relevant
community
congress
found
broad
variety
factors
go
computation
reasonable
attorney
fee
one
consideration
contingency
attorney
paid
wins
case
three
four
major
cases
cited
examples
appropriate
standards
correctly
applied
noted
blum
stenson
mentioned
risk
factor
weigh
see
johnson
georgia
highway
express
stanford
daily
zurcher
nd
cal
aff
rev
grounds
swann
board
education
wdnc
stanford
case
expressly
increased
fee
award
contingent
nature
attorneys
work
noting
increase
parallel
american
bar
association
determination
attorneys
deserve
higher
compensation
contingent
work
explained
public
standpoint
contingent
fee
helps
equalize
access
rich
poor
individuals
courts
making
attorney
decisions
concerning
representation
turn
action
merits
rather
size
client
income
ibid
thus
contrary
plurality
assertion
see
ante
congress
envisioned
district
courts
take
fact
contingency
account
calculating
reasonable
attorney
fee
resulting
fee
equivalent
prevailing
market
rates
courts
gained
experience
fee
calculations
many
begun
utilize
lodestar
reasonable
hours
worked
multiplied
reasonable
hourly
rate
see
lindy
builders
american
radiator
standard
sanitary
hensley
eckerhart
approving
use
lodestar
approach
lodestar
however
designed
simplify
circumvent
application
johnson
factors
appropriate
see
copeland
marshall
app
en
banc
berger
thus
statutory
fee
computed
solely
reference
rates
charged
corporate
firms
obtain
many
payments
clients
monthly
billings
rather
order
arrive
reasonable
attorney
fee
must
incorporate
premium
risk
nonrecovery
delay
payment
economic
risks
aggravated
contingency
payment
level
similar
premium
incorporated
market
rates
risk
premium
reflected
hourly
rate
goes
lodestar
calculation
hourly
rate
include
consideration
risk
enhancement
lodestar
see
blum
stenson
concurring
opinion
either
approach
adding
premium
simply
brings
fee
reasonable
level
contemplated
congress
see
derfner
wolf
awarded
attorney
fees
increase
fee
account
contingency
part
fine
tuning
courts
must
make
fee
reflect
true
market
value
attorney
efforts
adjustment
contingency
necessary
statutory
fees
competitive
private
market
competent
lawyers
attracted
private
practice
prosecute
statutory
violations
see
committee
legal
assistance
committee
report
counsel
fees
public
interest
litigation
record
simply
law
supply
demand
lawyers
earn
substantially
higher
pay
cases
private
sector
tend
either
reject
cases
effectively
penalized
taking
cases
see
brief
twelve
small
private
civil
rights
law
firms
amici
curiae
describing
financial
difficulties
depending
contingency
cases
statutory
attorney
fees
see
also
darden
illinois
bell
tel
concurring
opinion
unless
fees
enhanced
take
account
risk
losing
whether
multiplier
contingent
fee
device
stakes
high
fees
systematically
small
allowing
adjustments
contingency
similar
given
attorneys
private
market
thus
appropriately
enable
counsel
accept
apparently
causes
without
awaiting
sure
winners
yates
mobile
county
personnel
quoting
jones
diamond
surprisingly
courts
appeals
agreement
adjustments
risk
nonrecovery
appropriate
circumstances
blum
stenson
left
open
question
contingency
adjustments
also
made
clear
congress
intended
statutory
fees
competitive
private
market
lawyers
services
thus
competitive
awards
rather
kind
windfall
profits
congress
expressly
intended
prohibit
instead
way
implement
congressional
intent
law
land
plurality
decision
part
iv
opinion
foreclose
compensation
risk
nonrecovery
reduce
statutory
fees
market
rate
inevitably
obstruct
vindication
federal
rights
fewer
lawyers
attracted
work
persons
able
bring
valid
claims
unable
find
lawyer
likely
persons
modest
means
afford
augment
lawyer
fee
market
charge
precisely
persons
congress
sought
assist
even
plaintiffs
somehow
manage
attract
lawyers
market
rate
usually
get
pay
lawyers
less
fully
employed
less
capable
without
compensation
contingency
usy
successful
attorneys
simply
afford
accept
contingent
employment
arrangement
ill
serve
policies
enormous
national
importance
yates
mobile
county
personnel
congress
recognized
effective
enforcement
complex
cases
requires
services
experienced
attorneys
lawyers
less
likely
underemployed
therefore
tend
demand
rates
approaching
obtained
private
sector
berger
plurality
offers
assurances
enforcement
end
completely
groups
still
take
cases
see
ante
effect
plurality
place
entire
burden
injunctive
actions
modest
damages
claims
shoulders
bar
unrealistic
think
lawyers
law
centers
around
country
able
pick
slack
rest
bar
approximately
lawyers
services
pro
bono
bar
concentrated
eastern
urban
centers
simply
available
people
berger
omitted
significantly
plurality
opinion
validate
payment
lawyers
substantially
less
competitive
private
market
blum
however
made
clear
nonprofit
organizations
receive
less
fee
awards
hourly
rate
set
private
market
attorney
services
see
also
new
york
gaslight
club
carey
plurality
today
attempts
accomplish
indirectly
refused
directly
blum
plurality
defends
approach
asserting
plaintiffs
bringing
large
damages
claims
continue
attract
private
lawyers
see
ante
plaintiffs
might
able
hire
counsel
event
private
contingency
arrangements
congress
provided
fee
shifting
precisely
concluded
many
plaintiffs
unable
obtain
representation
manner
plurality
solution
slight
actions
seek
injunctive
relief
relatively
small
damages
awards
vindication
many
federal
rights
depends
see
riverside
rivera
ii
view
congress
desire
statutory
fees
competitive
private
market
plurality
needs
compelling
reason
order
reject
market
approach
determining
constitutes
reasonable
fee
although
plurality
suggests
reasons
objections
based
fundamental
mischaracterization
enhancement
contingency
awarding
attorney
fees
issue
whether
attorney
may
awarded
separate
compensation
assuming
risk
paid
explains
hat
risk
measured
risk
losing
rather
winning
depends
unsettled
applicable
law
respect
issues
posed
case
likely
facts
decided
complainant
ante
framed
issue
fashion
discovers
significant
problems
allowing
enhancements
based
likelihood
success
particular
cases
example
says
disturbed
evaluation
risk
loss
may
create
conflict
interest
attorneys
clients
plaintiff
defense
attorneys
try
characterize
cases
manner
increase
decrease
attorney
fees
ante
difficult
estimate
retroactively
prevailing
party
chance
success
knows
outcome
ante
notes
enhancements
perverse
result
penalizing
defendants
strongest
defenses
causing
defendants
subsidize
plaintiffs
attorneys
unsuccessful
actions
may
bring
ibid
last
concern
great
significance
plurality
appears
consistent
congress
decision
adopt
rule
prevailing
parties
entitled
fees
ante
also
expresses
alarm
echoing
opinion
appeals
district
columbia
circuit
laffey
northwest
airlines
app
cert
denied
theory
limit
size
fee
risk
enhancement
permitted
less
likely
chances
success
particular
case
entitled
prevailing
party
fee
award
reflect
acceptance
risk
ante
see
also
ante
underlying
flaw
objections
appropriate
enhancement
risk
depend
first
instance
degree
risk
presented
particular
case
enhancement
risk
designed
equalize
prospective
returns
among
contingent
cases
different
degrees
merit
rather
designed
simply
place
contingent
employment
whole
roughly
economic
footing
noncontingent
practice
order
cases
receive
equal
representation
intended
congress
enhancement
compensates
attorneys
risk
nonpayment
associated
contingent
employment
risk
exist
noncontingent
cases
discussed
without
possibility
enhancement
contingency
attorney
simple
economic
point
view
prefer
noncontingent
employment
contingent
employment
even
contingent
cases
best
merit
may
sometimes
fail
delay
payment
inherent
contingent
arrangement
economic
risks
may
aggravated
contingency
payment
thus
contrary
plurality
vision
enhancement
radically
increases
case
chance
success
decreases
enhancement
contingency
ordinary
cases
based
relative
likelihood
success
particular
case
recognized
fact
contingency
likelihood
success
particular
case
mandates
increase
attorney
fee
frightening
difficulties
envisioned
plurality
disappear
reason
assume
cases
delve
strengths
weaknesses
particular
case
potential
conflict
interests
arise
attorneys
clients
large
enhancements
disproportionate
success
case
granted
rather
job
simply
determine
whether
case
taken
contingent
basis
whether
attorney
able
mitigate
risk
nonpayment
way
whether
economic
risks
aggravated
contingency
payment
appeals
first
circuit
correctly
points
actual
risks
burdens
borne
lawyer
lawyers
determine
whether
upward
adjustment
called
wildman
lerner
stores
american
bar
association
sets
forth
reasonable
approach
determining
degree
enhancement
appropriate
calculating
statutory
attorney
fee
brief
american
bar
association
amicus
curiae
first
must
determine
whether
attorney
taken
case
contingent
basis
client
contracted
pay
lodestar
fee
reasonable
hours
times
reasonable
hourly
rate
regardless
outcome
case
paid
attorney
continuing
basis
attorney
clearly
avoided
risk
nonpayment
enhancement
appropriate
see
mattress
mfg
sealy
plaintiff
paid
lawyers
regular
hourly
basis
therefore
lawyers
neither
risked
noncompensation
endured
delay
payment
jones
central
soya
indication
case
taken
contingent
basis
therefore
upward
adjustment
appropriate
also
must
determine
attorney
able
mitigate
risk
nonpayment
way
example
client
agreed
pay
portion
lodestar
amount
regardless
outcome
case
attorney
mitigated
risk
loss
extent
although
percentage
total
expenses
paid
client
indicate
much
mitigating
factor
contribution
considered
see
stanford
daily
zurcher
client
agreed
pay
retainer
undertake
fundraising
effort
attorneys
clearly
guaranteed
payment
hours
expended
example
attorney
entered
contract
suit
seeking
substantial
damages
attorney
mitigated
risk
extent
exchanging
risk
nonpayment
prospect
compensation
greater
prospective
lodestar
amount
even
cases
course
must
still
calculate
reasonable
attorney
fee
assessed
defendant
reason
grant
defendant
windfall
excusing
payment
attorney
fees
simply
plaintiff
entered
contract
see
hamner
rios
sargeant
sharp
attorney
client
unable
mitigate
risk
nonpayment
enhancement
contingency
appropriate
many
cases
client
unable
pay
counsel
unwilling
assume
risk
liability
attorney
fees
even
public
interest
may
significantly
aided
private
litigation
cases
simply
generate
significant
funds
even
successful
many
actions
seek
declaratory
injunctive
relief
many
hampered
immunity
doctrines
special
defenses
available
defendants
many
generate
small
awards
see
riverside
rivera
see
also
rowe
legal
theory
attorney
fee
shifting
critical
overview
duke
american
bar
association
points
must
determine
whether
attorney
able
mitigate
economic
risk
nonpayment
must
also
determine
whether
specific
aspects
case
aggravated
economic
risk
brief
american
bar
association
amicus
curiae
enhancement
contingency
compensates
attorney
primarily
risk
spending
numerous
hours
indeed
often
years
case
knowledge
payment
may
ever
recovered
aspects
case
however
aggravate
economic
risk
inherent
contingency
payments
first
although
treats
delay
payment
independent
risk
nonpayment
see
ante
delay
integral
aspect
contingency
payments
compensation
appropriate
delay
payment
causes
problems
deprives
attorney
use
money
thus
magnifying
economic
risk
associated
uncertainty
payment
see
copeland
marshall
app
brief
twelve
small
private
civil
rights
law
firms
amici
curiae
describing
difficulties
related
delayed
payments
indeed
types
litigation
cases
seeking
institutional
reform
involving
complex
environmental
issues
potential
significant
delay
attorneys
must
assured
appropriate
enhancement
order
offset
financial
disincentive
taking
cases
second
case
may
present
greater
economic
risks
particular
attorney
circumstances
example
contingent
litigation
may
pose
greater
risks
small
firm
solo
practitioner
risk
nonpayment
may
offset
easily
presence
paying
work
paying
work
may
turned
away
contingent
case
accepted
conversely
responsibility
case
shared
among
several
firms
relative
economic
risk
borne
firm
may
diminished
see
fine
paper
antitrust
litigation
ed
aff
part
rev
part
cases
enhancement
contingency
sought
therefore
need
inquire
relative
likelihood
success
particular
case
possible
however
unusual
cases
likelihood
success
may
appropriately
taken
account
sometimes
legal
risks
facing
case
may
apparent
significant
constitute
economic
disincentive
independent
created
basic
contingency
payment
result
achieved
case
significant
broad
public
interest
additional
enhancement
justified
order
attract
attorneys
take
cases
otherwise
might
suffer
lack
representation
extra
enhancement
cases
however
awarded
exceptional
cases
cases
legal
risks
high
case
therefore
novel
difficult
attorneys
may
expected
spend
greater
number
hours
preparing
litigating
case
courts
consider
seriously
determining
number
reasonable
hours
incorporated
lodestar
careful
reduce
unduly
number
hours
novel
difficult
case
finds
however
attorney
taken
significant
legal
risk
case
important
public
interest
risk
compensated
adequately
number
hours
represented
lodestar
may
grant
enhancement
awarded
basic
contingency
risk
case
must
make
detailed
findings
regarding
particular
legal
risks
apparent
outset
litigation
importance
result
obtained
findings
justify
additional
enhancement
almost
plurality
objections
enhancements
contingency
become
irrelevant
enhancement
seen
general
matter
completely
independent
likelihood
success
particular
cases
approach
outlined
reason
assess
success
case
retroactively
cause
conflict
interest
arise
attorney
client
possibility
grant
huge
multipliers
simply
odds
case
significant
remaining
objection
awarding
higher
fees
lawyers
accept
contingent
cases
gives
lawyers
economic
stability
bring
possibly
unsuccessful
lawsuits
plurality
view
contravenes
congress
intent
award
attorney
fees
prevailing
parties
ante
objection
must
ultimately
fail
fact
attorney
still
recovers
fees
attorney
client
prevails
lawsuit
attorney
represents
client
unsuccessful
contingent
litigation
fees
recovered
attorney
may
use
fees
obtained
successful
contingency
lawsuit
bring
lawsuits
successful
contravene
way
congress
mandate
fees
awarded
solely
prevailing
parties
certainly
indication
legislative
history
congress
restriction
attorney
fees
prevailing
parties
intended
deny
reasonable
fees
attorneys
use
income
subsidize
unsuccessful
litigation
indeed
contrary
congress
intent
attorneys
bringing
statutory
violation
cases
compensated
manner
similar
attorneys
private
market
compensated
private
market
successful
attorney
earned
fees
attorney
business
basic
objective
courts
keep
mind
awarding
enhancements
risk
reasonable
attorney
fee
aim
competitive
private
market
even
possible
reflect
market
perfectly
thus
enhancement
contingency
whether
calculated
increase
reasonable
hourly
rate
used
arrive
lodestar
added
lodestar
bonus
multiplier
designed
windfall
attorney
prevailing
party
rather
designed
ensure
lawyers
take
cases
contingent
bases
properly
compensated
risks
inherent
cases
vindication
statutory
rights
passed
congress
depends
continued
availability
willingness
highly
skilled
lawyers
take
cases
receive
statutory
attorney
fee
setting
fees
courts
must
ensure
fees
reasonable
fees
properly
compensate
attorney
risks
assumed
iii
respondent
delaware
valley
clearly
prevailed
attaining
sought
results
occurred
without
efforts
supp
ed
prevailing
party
delaware
valley
entitled
statutory
fee
award
newman
piggie
park
enterprises
case
also
appears
candidate
contingency
adjustment
plaintiffs
lawyers
apparently
accepted
case
expectation
paid
clients
prevailed
district
however
explained
award
multiplier
three
phases
litigation
following
brief
statement
contingent
nature
plaintiff
success
apparent
throughout
litigation
plaintiffs
entered
litigation
government
commonwealth
pennsylvania
case
involved
new
novel
issues
resolution
little
precedent
commencing
phase
iv
continuing
present
plaintiffs
defend
rights
consent
decree
due
numerous
attempts
defendants
others
overturn
circumvent
orders
second
might
also
determine
whether
case
deserves
extra
enhancement
significant
legal
risks
apparent
outset
litigation
importance
case
note
however
respondent
attorneys
began
litigation
order
enforce
consent
decree
situation
usually
entail
difficult
legal
risks
district
believe
case
nonetheless
involve
significant
legal
risks
outset
litigation
make
specific
findings
effect
simply
state
case
involved
new
novel
issues
ibid
plurality
per
se
ruling
part
iv
opinion
enhancements
contingency
contravenes
congress
express
intent
statutory
attorney
fees
equivalent
prevailing
market
rates
highly
skilled
lawyers
available
vindicate
statutory
rights
conferred
congress
least
however
majority
leaves
open
opportunity
district
courts
award
enhancements
contingency
selected
cases
respectfully
dissent
concurrence
recognizes
congress
intend
foreclose
enhancements
contingency
setting
reasonable
attorney
fees
see
ante
plurality
also
recognizes
fashion
statutes
might
construed
permit
supplementing
lodestar
appropriate
cases
paying
counsel
assuming
risk
nonpayment
see
ante
neither
opinion
however
follows
analysis
remanding
case
district
application
proper
standards
johnson
georgia
highway
express
essentially
adopted
factors
aba
model
code
professional
responsibility
dr
sets
forth
guidelines
determining
size
appropriate
attorney
fee
including
hether
fee
fixed
contingent
emphasis
omitted
factors
cited
included
time
labor
required
case
novelty
difficulty
questions
skill
required
perform
legal
service
properly
preclusion
employment
customary
fee
time
limitations
imposed
client
experience
attorneys
undesirability
case
nature
relationship
client
awards
similar
cases
many
factors
included
within
lodestar
reasonable
hours
worked
multiplied
reasonable
hourly
rate
see
blum
stenson
bills
introduced
congress
prohibit
bonuses
multipliers
including
adjustments
risk
nonrecovery
suit
brought
state
local
government
see
far
efforts
limit
recovery
attorney
fees
unavailing
lawyers
paid
hourly
basis
course
face
risk
nonpayment
hours
worked
billed
hourly
rate
charged
may
reflect
see
murray
weinberger
app
therefore
little
quarrel
plurality
statement
either
clean
air
act
expressly
provides
using
risk
loss
independent
basis
increasing
otherwise
reasonable
fee
ante
emphasis
added
difficulty
purely
economic
terms
statutory
attorney
fee
otherwise
reasonable
fails
include
premium
contingency
payment
left
issue
open
blum
stenson
almost
courts
appeals
upheld
enhancements
contingency
ruled
enhancements
allowable
appropriate
circumstances
see
wildman
lerner
stores
lewis
coughlin
durett
cohen
vaughns
board
ed
prince
george
county
sims
jefferson
downs
racing
kelley
metropolitan
county
bd
en
banc
cert
denied
moore
des
moines
cert
denied
planned
parenthood
arizona
ramos
lamm
cited
approval
jordan
heckler
jones
central
soya
crumbaker
merit
systems
protection
board
ca
fed
courts
appeals
district
columbia
seventh
circuits
questioned
propriety
risk
enhancement
see
laffey
northwest
airlines
app
cert
denied
mckinnon
berwyn
repeats
analyses
cases
detail
see
ante
panels
two
circuits
however
indicated
enhancements
appropriate
certain
situations
see
murray
weinberger
app
mattress
mfg
sealy
moreover
plurality
case
courts
laffey
mckinnon
misconstrued
nature
purpose
enhancements
contingency
plurality
conclusion
part
iv
opinion
course
governing
law
five
members
parties
opinion
justice
believe
enhancement
contingency
appropriate
specified
cases
see
ante
concurrence
conclude
congress
intend
foreclose
consideration
contingency
setting
reasonable
fee
provisions
clean
air
act
civil
rights
attorney
fees
awards
act
nonprofit
law
firm
obtain
additional
revenue
charging
clients
services
expenses
still
retain
status
charitable
organization
see
cfr
rev
proc
cum
bull
rev
proc
cum
bull
rev
rul
cum
bull
rev
rul
cum
bull
acceptance
statutory
fee
awards
within
limits
however
jeopardize
status
see
rev
rul
cum
bull
firms
generally
may
use
money
receive
federal
government
limited
public
funding
received
legal
services
corporation
cases
fees
available
see
hensley
eckerhart
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
equalization
result
plurality
view
risk
enhancement
view
attorney
takes
relatively
weak
contingent
cases
prevail
infrequently
expect
receive
large
enhancements
attorney
thus
receive
approximately
compensation
attorney
takes
stronger
contingent
cases
prevails
often
accordingly
receives
smaller
enhancements
see
hensley
eckerhart
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
courts
applying
must
also
take
account
money
fact
attorneys
never
certain
win
even
best
case
crumbaker
merit
systems
protection
board
argument
risk
enhancement
allowed
plaintiff
attorney
must
known
basis
law
facts
case
defendant
prevail
inane
case
required
best
ability
counsel
defendant
vigorously
contested
case
case
certain
prevail
see
leubsdorf
contingency
factor
attorney
fee
awards
yale
leubsdorf
contingency
award
require
inquiry
likelihood
success
case
note
attorney
fees
contingency
factor
blum
stenson
rev
tandard
contingency
adjustment
unrelated
risks
particular
case
used
calculating
section
attorney
fees
indeed
ironic
draws
heavily
article
professor
leubsdorf
see
ante
article
appeals
district
columbia
circuit
laffey
appeals
seventh
circuit
mckinnon
likewise
rely
article
professor
leubsdorf
clearly
sets
forth
difficulties
arise
contingency
enhancements
based
relative
likelihood
success
particular
cases
leubsdorf
approach
terms
approach
two
leading
cases
area
professor
leubsdorf
begins
analysis
recognition
enhancement
contingency
necessary
attorneys
receive
fair
market
value
work
lawyer
bears
risk
paid
provides
legal
services
receiving
fair
market
value
work
paid
second
functions
paid
competent
counsel
reluctant
accept
fee
award
cases
thus
professor
explains
although
economic
reasoning
justifies
contingency
bonus
explain
approach
calculating
size
bonus
first
emphasis
added
ibid
professor
leubsdorf
subsequently
offers
alternative
approaches
calculating
awarding
contingency
enhancements
thus
contrary
implication
opinion
ante
appeals
wildman
approve
contingency
enhancements
based
likelihood
success
particular
cases
rather
vacated
multiplier
granted
district
held
without
elaboration
contingent
nature
case
quality
attorney
work
warranted
enhancement
remanded
case
district
determine
whether
enhancement
contingency
warranted
among
factors
considered
remand
payment
attorneys
received
suit
successful
costs
expenses
attorneys
incurred
case
lost
extent
attorneys
required
compensate
associates
carry
overhead
expenses
without
assurance
compensation
whether
attorneys
refused
take
case
risk
nonpayment
factors
focus
solely
extent
contingency
payment
likelihood
success
based
law
facts
particular
case
although
errs
viewing
delay
integral
component
contingency
gratifying
note
suggest
adjustments
delay
inconsistent
typical
statute
ante
see
brewer
southern
union
supp
small
firm
uzzell
friday
supp
mdnc
solo
practitioner
case
substantial
percentage
attorney
law
practice
devoted
see
craik
minnesota
state
university
additional
personnel
must
hired
without
assurance
compensation
may
also
riskier
ordinary
contingent
case
economic
risks
might
also
increased
case
foreclosed
participation
otherwise
available
business
potential
conflicts
interest
case
unpopular
risk
loss
business
see
johnson
georgia
highway
express
one
factors
consider
undesirability
case
effect
may
obtaining
business
emphasis
omitted
york
alabama
state
board
education
supp
md
successful
plaintiffs
civil
rights
lawyers
often
hired
types
sophisticated
federal
litigation
although
circumstances
probably
exist
comparatively
cases
attorneys
nonetheless
compensated
undertaken
representation
despite
risks
cases
extra
enhancement
granted
low
likelihood
success
importance
result
achieved
sufficiently
rare
plurality
concerns
lose
much
force
moreover
cases
tend
important
test
cases
encouraged
award
attorney
fees
justification
contingency
premium
explained
either
inducement
persuade
attorney
invest
time
matter
may
unproductive
even
lawyer
hourly
fee
work
handle
may
willing
accept
contingency
concludes
value
potential
premium
justifies
risk
nonpayment
means
providing
level
compensation
offset
losses
cases
fail
either
explanation
simply
reflection
private
market
compensates
contingency
see
berger
awarded
attorney
fees
reasonable
rev
district
appeals
relied
heavily
fact
respondent
faced
serious
persistent
opposition
case
see
fact
attorney
faces
strong
opposition
opponent
certainly
given
significant
weight
factor
however
ordinarily
becomes
relevant
assessment
reasonableness
hours
expended
attorney
preparing
litigating
case
like
novelty
difficulty
case
strong
persistent
opponent
usually
demands
significant
increase
hours
devoted
case
cases
extra
enhancement
justified
significant
legal
risks
faced
outset
litigation
may
take
account
well
perceived
strength
opposition
outset
however
grant
extra
enhancement
determines
attorneys
already
adequately
compensated
number
reasonable
hours
constitute
lodestar