Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

1988

Legal Profession

University of Washington School of Law

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Attorney's Fee Contingency Enhancements: Toward A Complete Incentive To Litigate Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statutes—Pennsylvania V. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council For Clean Air, 107 S. Ct. 3078 (1987), Arthur J. Lachman Apr 1988

Attorney's Fee Contingency Enhancements: Toward A Complete Incentive To Litigate Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statutes—Pennsylvania V. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council For Clean Air, 107 S. Ct. 3078 (1987), Arthur J. Lachman

Washington Law Review

Federal fee-shifting statutes generally allow trial courts to award "reasonable" attorney's fees to prevailing parties in order to promote private enforcement of Congressional statutory directives. The starting point for the computation of fee awards under the fee-shifting statutes is the "lodestar" amount. The "lodestar" amount is defined as the reasonable number of hours spent by the attorney on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Trial courts, in their discretion, have then enhanced the lodestar amount based on a variety of factors, including the quality of representation, delay in receiving payment, and contingency. Contingency is defined as the risk …


Attorney's Fee Contingency Enhancements: Toward A Complete Incentive To Litigate Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statutes—Pennsylvania V. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council For Clean Air, 107 S. Ct. 3078 (1987), Arthur J. Lachman Apr 1988

Attorney's Fee Contingency Enhancements: Toward A Complete Incentive To Litigate Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statutes—Pennsylvania V. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council For Clean Air, 107 S. Ct. 3078 (1987), Arthur J. Lachman

Washington Law Review

Federal fee-shifting statutes generally allow trial courts to award "reasonable" attorney's fees to prevailing parties in order to promote private enforcement of Congressional statutory directives. The starting point for the computation of fee awards under the fee-shifting statutes is the "lodestar" amount. The "lodestar" amount is defined as the reasonable number of hours spent by the attorney on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Trial courts, in their discretion, have then enhanced the lodestar amount based on a variety of factors, including the quality of representation, delay in receiving payment, and contingency. Contingency is defined as the risk …


The Award Of Attorney's Fees To Prevailing Defendants Under The Washington Long Arm Statute, Valner L. Johnson Jan 1988

The Award Of Attorney's Fees To Prevailing Defendants Under The Washington Long Arm Statute, Valner L. Johnson

Washington Law Review

Numerous state and federal statutes award winning litigants attorney's fees from losing litigants. The Washington long arm statute, section 4.28.185(5) of the Revised Code of Washington, allows prevailing nonresident defendants to recover their attorney's fees from losing resident plaintiffs. The statute provides that when defendants are personally served outside the state on causes of action enumerated in the statute, the court may require a plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees. This Comment argues that the judicial implementation of this provision inappropriately inflicts injury upon Washington plaintiffs while often failing to protect nonresident defendants.


The Award Of Attorney's Fees To Prevailing Defendants Under The Washington Long Arm Statute, Valner L. Johnson Jan 1988

The Award Of Attorney's Fees To Prevailing Defendants Under The Washington Long Arm Statute, Valner L. Johnson

Washington Law Review

Numerous state and federal statutes award winning litigants attorney's fees from losing litigants. The Washington long arm statute, section 4.28.185(5) of the Revised Code of Washington, allows prevailing nonresident defendants to recover their attorney's fees from losing resident plaintiffs. The statute provides that when defendants are personally served outside the state on causes of action enumerated in the statute, the court may require a plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees. This Comment argues that the judicial implementation of this provision inappropriately inflicts injury upon Washington plaintiffs while often failing to protect nonresident defendants.