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
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Full Text
1,774 charsreasonable attorney fee) (citing Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 108 Wn.2d 38, 66, 738 P.2d 665 (1987)). Regardless, an attorney’s usual hourly rate is not conclusively a reasonable rate, and the court may determine that adjustment to the hourly rate is necessary based on other factors even where the opposing party does not object to the hourly rate. Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581, 597, 675 P.2d 193 (1983); see Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wn.2d 735, 744, 733 P.2d 208 (1987). The trial court may consider factors such as the attorney’s skill level and local rates charged by attorneys with similar skills and experience. Baker v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 5 Wn. App. 2d 604, 623, 428 P.3d 155 (2018); Bowers, 100 Wn.2d at 597; see also Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 433 n.20 (citing RPC 1.5(a)). “[A] trial court has the inherent knowledge and experience to evaluate the reasonableness of an hourly rate.” State v. Numrich, 12 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. 87780-1-I/13 197 Wn.2d 1, 31, 480 P.3d 376 (2021). “The court ... is itself an expert on the question of the value of legal services, and may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees, and may form an independent judgment either with or without the aid of testimony of witnesses as to value.” Brown v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 66 Wn. App. 273, 283, 831 P.2d 1122 (1992) (quoting STUART M. SPEISER, ATTORNEY’S FEES § 18:14, at 478 (1973)). Here, the record supports that the trial court reviewed the Cromars’ evidence and found that the hourly fees of $680 for Anderson and $565 for Santiago were not reasonable based on their respective experience, skill, and education. Both Anderson