Proofread Your Work: Submission of Subpar Written Papers Or Sloppy Work Product Can Lead To A Reduction In Fees

Transylvania Feral Court Slashes Attorney’s Fees Award Drastically For Spoor Work Product.

     Although we usually confine our posts to California-oriented cases, settlements, or fee issues, the following fee reduction ruling by a Philadelphia-based federal district judge was too good to pass up and also offers some sobering lessons to practitioners seeking fee awards when their written paperwork has not been proofread carefully enough.

     U.S. District Judge J. William Ditter Jr., in McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, had to rule on a fee request by a winning plaintiff in a civil rights case, which was governed by a mandatory fee shifting statute (42 U.S.C. sec. 1988).  Plaintiff won $150,000 in a jury trial, and plaintiff’s attorney sought more than $180,000 in attorney’s fees for the work of two attorneys. 

     Judge Ditter only awarded plaintiff $26,278.75 in fees for the work of the two attorneys.  Among other things, the district judge was flabbergasted by the typographical and other errors riddling the fee petition itself, with our personal favorite being the typo “mocong papers” (rather than “moving papers”).  He was equally unimpressed by the proposed order lodged by the winning attorneys, where they wrongly cut and pasted from a different document—forgetting to change the erroneous defendants’ names or the incorrect dollar figures from the prior template being used, leading the district judge to comment “[i]t is suggested that I sign an order which recites the wrong amount of McKenna’s judgment and orders thee strangers to this action to pay attorneys’ fees and costs.”

     The defense had asked Judge Ditter to reduce the fee award to about $19,500.  Ultimately, the district judge found the proper lodestar was about $105,000, but should be reduced by 75% for claims rejected by the jury and for the sloppy work product submitted to the court on prior occasions.  The reduction was justified, according to Judge Ditter, because of the questionable time records, lack of candor, slip-shod submissions, and failure to apportion out hours devoted to work for three other plaintiffs who had not been successful.  In a “postscript” paragraph worth quoting, Judge Ditter whimsically observed:  “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, each lawyer knew he and she could not nail any old slap-dash parchment to the church door and expect someone else to pay for it.  Most lawyers who practice in this court also know that.  They all should.”

     In an earlier case, a U.S. magistrate judge reduced the same lead attorney’s requested hourly rate in a civil rights fee award request from $300 per hour to $150 per hour based on his sloppy work. 

     Lead attorney did admit in an interview that he relied too heavily on spell-checking software and did not proofread enough.  These mistakes were costly, costly to the tune of almost $80,000 based on the lodestar that the district judge found to be reasonable in nature.  Hope u al had fun reding this blawg.  If you want some more information on the circumstances of the McKenna ruling, see the October 8, 2008 article by Shannon P. Duffy, “Typos and Errors Lead to Slashed Fees for Attorney,” available for reading on Law.Com.