ACR-GNY - A Firm’s Representation of Multiple Claimants and Attorney Fee Award

Log in

Home
Learn
Resolution Roundtable Blog
A Firm’s Representation of Multiple Claimants and Attorney Fee Award
Add comment

A Firm’s Representation of Multiple Claimants and Attorney Fee Award

Thursday, September 11, 2025 7:37 PM | Anonymous

Florida Divorce & Child Custody | Appealing Attorneys Fees - Collection Title

This question concerns the situation where there is a right to attorney fees to the prevailing party, in particular in employment and consumer matters. Since the advent of many bans on class actions, it is frequently the case that the claimants’ firms represent multiple claimants against the same respondent with nearly identical claims. Sometimes this occurs in the mass arbitration context, but also frequently where a firm might represent 3-10 claimants. In evaluating an attorney fee request from the claimant's attorney after a finding in favor of the claimant, how should the firms representation of multiple claimants affect the attorney fee award, if at all. Frequently, the firms are able to use sections of their briefs, particularly regarding the legal issues, in multiple cases.

What are your thoughts?

Add comment

Comments

Thursday, September 11, 2025 8:00 PM | Dustin Hecker

A prevailing party or parties is/are entitled to no more than what they paid their attorneys. Or, in certain circumstances, the imputed hourly rate for the time actually expended. In both cases, "if reasonable." The fact the lawyers and clients economized by agreeing to a joint representation should neither enhance nor subtract from the award.

Link • Reply
- Friday, September 12, 2025 9:47 AM | daniel feinstein
  
  Yes, but with a caveat. Under a lodestar calculation, there may be times when it is appropriate to include a multiplier on the ordinary hourly rate in certain circumstances.
  
  Link • Reply
Thursday, September 11, 2025 8:54 PM | Tom Cunningham

In this fee shifting situation, the fees must be reasonable and fairly apportioned

Link • Reply
Friday, September 12, 2025 11:07 AM | Robert L. Arrington

If it appears that the same attorney is charging for the same time in multiple cases, then the fee application in each must be discounted. But not eliminated. In each case, some tailoring is required.

Link • Reply
Friday, September 12, 2025 11:11 AM | Rebecca A. Bowman, Esq., P.E., D.F.E. (NAFE #1153)

I would prefer to see it handled at the other end with a disclosure requirements: "If you are representing multiple claimants against the same respondent, there must be a disclosure of the efficiency discount applied to the attorney's billing." That doesn't REQUIRE a discount, but warns that we arbitrators are paying attention.

Link • Reply

Author

* Comment
- Friday, September 12, 2025 1:43 PM | David Slaughter
  
  I applaud this approach.
  
  Link • Reply
- Saturday, September 13, 2025 1:04 AM | Tuneen Chisolm, Esq., M.S.Ch.E
  
  I agree, Rebecca!
  
  Link • Reply
  - Monday, September 15, 2025 11:53 AM | Jonah Orlofsky
    
    The implication seems to be that an attorney will work 1 hour, but because that hour is applicable to, say, 3 cases, they should be paid for three hours of work? If the case was on a taken on a billable basis and the attorney billed three clients for the same 1 hour I would find that highly questionable and certainly not award 3 hours of fees. If the case was taken on a contingent basis I would award 1 hour of time and perhaps a multiplier for the contingency risk. I do not think you should ever be able to bill for the same time more than once.
    
    Link • Reply
    
    Wednesday, September 17, 2025 12:51 PM | l
    
    In a continency fee situation requiring a lodestar calculation, the attorneys were upfront about their representation of other claimants with similar cases. The attorneys segregated time for tasks they considered common to all cases. While I was considering the attorney fee award, the claimant's counsel informed me that another arbitrator had awarded the full amount of the "common fees" in another matter and the claimant withdrew the request for the "common" time. Nonetheless, under applicable California law for the type of case, attorney fees are to be awarded for all time reasonably expended to obtain the outcome. Although the time spent might have been useful for another matter, the time was nonetheless reasonable for the matter before me. (In other words, much of it would have been necessary in only a single claimant case.) Nonetheless, had I awarded fees for common time, I would have required claimant’s counsel to inform the other arbitrators in the still pending cases (without violating confidentiality) of the award for the common time to preclude a double recovery.
    
    Link • Reply