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

1,732 chars

devoted to discovery noted above, counsels claimed time meeting with their clients,

learning about their problem, drafting the complaint, and then performing tasks that are

simply necessary to any lawsuit, such as time to draft a motion for default when TAG

Realty refused to answer as was its obligation under CR 8 and CR 12, preparing

witness disclosures and the confirmation of joinder that the superior court required by its

local rules, drafting a motion for continuance, discussing the case with the client as is

required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, filing a motion for summary judgment

that was in the end both necessary to obtain TAG Realty’s compliance with the law and

justified in its entirety. The effect of the trial court’s ruling is to warn any would-be

tenant’s counsel that they need to be able to perform all such litigation in two day’s

worth of time, or go without compensation.

The trial court’s vast reduction of plaintiffs’ fees required the court to provide an

explanation as to which parts of the lawyer’s casework it discounted to arrive at its final

numbers and for what reasons. See Peiffer, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 833-34 (holding that trial

24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
87780-1-I/25

court failed to provide adequate explanation for its substantial 32 percent reduction of

requested fees). Further, a trial court is required to show how it resolved any disputed

issues of fact, and the court’s conclusions must explain its analysis. Berryman, 177 Wn.

App. at 658. Here, the trial court’s order provides no such insight. 14 Instead, the trial

court’s ruling admonishes the Cromars for pursuing a class action claim and appears to