836.41 Generally

Attorney’s fee issues discussed in this case include: ‘partial success’ reduction for allegedly not prevailing on an arrest record discrimination theory as well as a conviction record discrimination theory; alleged lack of specificity in billing entries; lack of ‘billing judgment’ reductions in bills; lack of delegation of work to clerks, paralegals, junior associates; fee reduction because billing was in quarter hour units rather than tenth of an hour units; and the necessity of, and sufficiency of, affidavits from other attorneys as to prevailing rates. Hill v. Stanton Optical (LIRC, 09/26/14), dismissed by stipulation sub nom. Stanton Optical v. LIRC and (Hill) Martin (Dane Co. Cir. Ct. 08/17/15).

The Administrative Law Judge awarded attorney’s fees to the Complainant in the amount of $137,534.20. The Respondent’s contention that it was unable to find any case in which the Commission had awarded more than $18,000 in attorney’s fees was rejected. There are numerous occasions in which attorney’s fees well in excess of $18,000 have been made. The determination as to what amount of fees is reasonable will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. The mere fact that the Respondent incurred costs defending the litigation is not a basis to deny the Complainant’s request for attorney’s fees. Bowen v. Stroh Die Casting Co. (LIRC, 10/28/11).

Attorney’s fees may be awarded even if they are significantly higher than the total back pay award. Nickell v. County of Washburn (LIRC, 07/29/05).

In evaluating fees, the criterion to consider is not what the parties agreed on, but what is reasonable. Where a Complainant’s attorneys charged significantly higher hourly rates in the latter stages of the litigation as it made its way up through the Supreme Court, the fact that the Complainant may have agreed to a fee increase does not dispose of the matter. Any increase in the complexity of the case could be accounted for by the fact that the attorneys were permitted to bill for all work hours reasonably expended, including the time spent preparing for oral argument and the additional time that may have been necessary to comply with the more stringent filing requirements at the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court levels. The Complainant’s attorneys had to demonstrate that the hourly rate requested was consistent with the prevailing market rate in the community for similar services. Roytek v. Hutchinson Tech. (LIRC, 02/15/05).

The fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. Olson v. Phillips Plating (LIRC, 02/11/92).

An attorney's time spent in establishing entitlement to fees for the hours spent in connection with the preparation of the fee petition is normally recoverable. Donovan v. Graebel Van Lines (LIRC, 05/23/90, amended 06/08/90).

While the amount of back pay received by a Complainant is certainly relevant to the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, it is only one of many factors that must be considered. The amount of attorney’s fees is not to be limited by the amount of damages recovered. Thus, the Complainant was appropriately awarded the full attorney’s fees she sought after prevailing on her claim for relief in a sexual harassment matter, notwithstanding that she did not receive the full back pay she sought. Collicott v. Riverside Plating Co. (LIRC, 04/01/87).

The fact that an attorney has represented a Complainant on a contingent fee basis does not establish an upper limit or otherwise control attorney's fees in equal rights cases. Collicott v. Riverside Plating Co. (LIRC, 04/01/87).

An attorney’s fees award of over $18,000 was reasonable in a discrimination case in which back pay of less than $5,000 was awarded. There is no authority or persuasive reason to limit the recovery of attorney's fees and costs to the amount of the award. Since the hours claimed were not excessive, the award was appropriate. Hibbard v. Kelly Photo Serv. (LIRC, 09/30/85).