Vanderbilt Professor And His Students Updated Information From The U.S. Attorney’s Office In The Original Laffey Matrix.
Although it has not been used outside of the District of Columbia, D.C. fee claimants now have another alternative for establishing reasonable hourly rates of their attorneys, with some caveats: the Fitzpatrick Matrix.
Vanderbilt Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, with the help of his students, helped the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to update the matrix using many data points from actual litigated federal D.C. cases based on years of experience for attorneys and paralegals/law clerks, searching cases in 2013-2020 and then applying a CPI index increase for years 2021-2023. It has been used by several D.C. courts since its development. (See, e.g., J.T. v. District of Columbia, 2023 WL 355940 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2023).)
There are some important caveats in its use: it only applies to complex, fee-shifting federal litigation in the D.C. area (not outside D.C.). So, the complexity of the case is an important factor in its use. (Compare Bradley v. U.S., Case No. 19-4001 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 1, 2023) [matrix used in National Trails System Act case, where fees were sought under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970] with Bond v. Friendship Public Charter School Bd. of Trustees, Case No. 23-cv-367-ZMF (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2023) [IDEA litigation is not presumptively complex; allowing fees under the matrix but discounting by 25% based on lack of complexity].)
Comments