Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877801%20orderandopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,547 chars

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
87780-1-I/8

and some of the billed work was unproductive and did not contribute to the success of

the Cromars’ claim. TAG Realty identified only 2.9 hours of work that it specifically

challenged as unproductive, which consisted of time the Cromars’ counsel Anderson

had devoted to “emails sent to … [TAG Realty’s] counsel regarding settlement.” TAG

Realty did not identify any other work it asserted was unproductive, beyond simply

arguing as a generalized matter that the fees incurred were “not warranted given the

amount of money in controversy.” The balance of TAG Realty’s opposition to counsels’

fee request was limited to challenging counsels’ hourly rates. The sole competent

evidence regarding attorney rates that TAG Realty submitted was its counsel’s

testimony, “My hourly billable rate in this matter is $275/hour.” TAG Realty’s counsel did

not describe the manner in which his rate was established, nor his experience or

reputation in the legal market. 7 The trial court awarded the Cromars $7,200 in attorney

fees and $445.97 in costs. This award was less than a quarter of the fees that they

requested. 8

Regarding counsels’ hourly rate, the court found that the rates were not

reasonable based on the experience, skill, and education of Anderson and Santiago.

Based on its knowledge, the court found that reasonable hourly rates in the Seattle legal

market given each counsel’s experience, skill, and education was $500 for Anderson