A District Court judge in Minnesota has reduced the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to a pair of lawyers representing a plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case by more than 50%, pointing out that the only major issue in the case was figuring out how much the lawyers should get paid.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit against a debt collection agency, alleging violations of the FDCPA, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), and Regulation E. The core of the complaint was that the defendant attempted to debit funds from the plaintiff’s bank account without consent.
- The case actually saw little litigation activity. After the defendant initially failed to answer the complaint, it was granted an extension and subsequently filed an answer. Four months later, the plaintiff accepted an Offer of Judgment that provided her $6,001 in damages.
- What followed became the most contentious part of the case: determining attorney’s fees. The plaintiff’s lawyers, both seasoned consumer rights attorneys, requested $68,320 in fees for 118.1 hours of work, along with $502.35 in costs.
The ruling: Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the District Court for the District of Minnesota found that figure to be “exorbitant,” reducing the award to a total of $26,568 in fees. He highlighted the simplicity of the case and the redundancy of having two high-billing attorneys handling what he repeatedly referred to as a “run-of-the-mill” FDCPA matter.
Among the court’s adjustments:
- Reducing the hourly rate for one attorney to $600/hour from from $650/hour, and the other to $400/hour from $500/hour.
- Excluding any hours billed after the date of the Offer of Judgment was made and accepted.
- Reducing the award by an additional 10% for additional inefficiencies.
The court also called out the plaintiff’s attorneys for ignoring a $25,000 fee offer made by the defendant before the fee dispute escalated.
Ultimately, the judge awarded both attorneys a combined $26,568 in fees and $502.35 in costs. “A request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation, wrote Judge Schiltz. “Here, [the plaintiff’s] request for attorney’s fees resulted, not in a second major litigation, but in the only major litigation.”
