Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,789 chars

billing rate, . . . the level of skill required by the litigation, time limitations imposed

on the litigation, the amount of potential recovery, the attorney’s reputation, and

the undesirability of the case.” Id. “Whether or not a fee is reasonable is an

independent determination to be made by the awarding court” based on

“circumstances of each individual case.” Absher Const. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist. No.

415, 79 Wn. App. 841, 847, 917 P.2d 1086 (1995). Appellate courts must be

“mindful that it is the trial judge who watches a case unfold and who is in the best

position to determine the proper lodestar amount.” Morgan v. Kingen, 141 Wn.

App. 143, 163, 169 P.3d 487 (2007).

The trial court here did not abuse its discretion in determining reasonable

hourly rates for Sgt. Hockett’s attorneys. Sgt. Hockett’s motion for attorney fees

was supported by declarations from his counsel as to the basis for their rates and

declarations from other local practitioners regarding the reasonableness of these

rates in the market for this type of case. After scrutinizing these filings, the trial

court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it determined that the

hourly rates requested by Sgt. Hockett were “within reasonable rates this Court

sees.” Because the record amply supports the trial court’s determination, the trial

35
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

court did not abuse its discretion when it utilized the hourly rates provided by Sgt.

Hockett’s counsel.

SPD largely ignores the trial court’s findings and supporting declarations.

Instead, it claims the hourly rates were unreasonable simply because they

exceeded the contracted rates that Sgt. Hockett’s counsel had disclosed during