law-attorneys-fees-amount | attorney fee factors

law-attorneys-fees-amount | attorney fee factors | reasonableness of attorney's fees | atty fees in contract cases |
UDJA declaratory judgment claim and attorney's fees | fees in family law cases | fees for ad litem attorney | attorney's fees in
eviction case | appellate attorney's fees | fee appeals |

AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES

The amount of attorneys’ fees that are both reasonable and necessary to the litigation of a particular claim
presents a question of fact. See Ridge Oil Co. v. Guinn Invs., Inc., 148 S.W.3d 143, 161 (Tex. 2004) (citing
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998)). The total amount of attorneys’ fees that are equitable and
just presents a question of law committed to the trial court’s discretion. Id. (citing Bocquet, 972 S.W.2d at 21).

The trial court abuses that discretion if it rules arbitrarily, unreasonably, without regard to guiding legal
principles, or without supporting evidence. See Bocquet, 972 S.W.2d at 21 (A[I]n reviewing an attorney fee
award under the [Declaratory Judgments] Act, the court of appeals must determine whether the trial court
abused its discretion by awarding fees when there was insufficient evidence that the fees were reasonable and
necessary, or when the award was inequitable or unjust.”).

The trial court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees in an amount less than or equal to the amount
determined by the factfinder to be reasonable and necessary. Ridge Oil Co., 148 S.W.3d 161-62. Thus, the
amount determined by the factfinder to be the reasonable and necessary fees for litigation of claims for which
recovery is authorized sets the outer boundary of fees that may be awarded under the Declaratory Judgments
Act or section 114.064 of the Texas Property Code, and the trial court may award so much of that sum as it
determines to be both equitable and just.

ARTHUR ANDERSON FEE FACTORS

Factors for the trial court to consider when determining the reasonableness of attorney's fees include:

1. the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to
perform the legal service properly;
2. the likelihood that acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
3. the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
4. the amount involved and the results obtained;
5. the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
6. the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
7. the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and
8. whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or uncertainty of collection before the legal
services have been rendered.
See Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997). Section 38.003
establishes a presumption that the "usual and customary attorney's fees for a claim of the type described in
section 38.001 are reasonable." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.003 (West 2010).

CASELAW ON DISPUTES OVER REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES

In USAA County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook, this Court stated,

Factors that a factfinder should consider when determining the reasonableness of a fee include: (1) the time
and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the
legal service properly; (2) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other
employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the
amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and
ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results
obtained or uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered. Arthur Andersen & Co. v.
Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997) (citing Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.04).
Attorney's fees must bear some reasonable relationship to the amount in controversy. Cordova v.
Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 148 S.W.3d 441, 448 (Tex. App.-- El Paso 2004, no pet.). But, the
amount of damages awarded is only one factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award. Id.

241 S.W.3d 93, 102-03 (Tex. App.-- Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). In the present case, the Bank
challenges only the amount of attorney's fees in relation to the amount in controversy, which is only one of
several factors to be considered. However, we address the evidence presented in light of each of the factors.

Bank of Texas, NA v. V R Electric (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Sep, 4, 2008)(Alcala)
(suit over payment of forged check, breach of contract claim sustained, attorney's fees, proportionate
responsibility allocation of liability)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Justices Nuchia, Alcala and Hanks
01-07-00308-CV        Bank of Texas, NA v. V R Electric
Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Fort Bend County
Trial Court Judge: The Honorable David Hunter
Although the Bank contends that the amount of attorney's fees awarded is excessive, it presented no evidence
that a rate of $250 per hour for a Houston attorney is unreasonable or that the amount of time dedicated to the
case was unreasonable. Given the amount of time invested in the case by VR's attorney, charged at a
reasonable rate for this area for an attorney with the experience of Sandvig, the attorney's fees awarded are
not excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's award
of trial and appellate attorney's fees.

Ogu v. Bridle Wood (Tex.App,- Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 8, 2009)(Hanks)
(declaratory judgment, attorney's fees, jury trial)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Hanks
Before Justices Jennings, Hanks and Bland
01-07-00933-CV        Caroline Ogu and Oakey Ugboaja v. Bridle Wood, et al
Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No 4 of Harris County
Following this exchange, the trial court heard testimony on the issue of attorneys’ fees without the jury present,
against the express wishes of the Property Owners. Under these facts, we hold that the Property Owners were
entitled to a jury trial on the issue of the amount of attorneys’ fees, the denial of this right constitutes reversible
error, and this case must be remanded for a jury trial as requested on this issue. See McDaniel, 898 S.W.2d at
253. Since we are remanding this case for a new trial on the issue of attorneys’ fees, we do not reach the other
two remaining points of error.
On remand, Carolyn must present evidence to support a fee award, and such evidence may be presented in
terms of the reasonable amount of time or money necessary to litigate particular claims. If a legal service
necessary to the litigation of a claim for which attorneys’ fees are available also advanced a claim for which
attorneys’ fees are not recoverable, then the exception to the general fee-segregation rule applies, and the
amount of time or money that was reasonable to expend in performing the service need not be segregated
among the claims it advanced.

PROVING UP FEES - FEE FACTORS

On remand, Carolyn must present evidence to support a fee award, and such evidence may be presented in
terms of the reasonable amount of time or money necessary to litigate particular claims. If a legal service
necessary to the litigation of a claim for which attorneys’ fees are available also advanced a claim for which
attorneys’ fees are not recoverable, then the exception to the general fee-segregation rule applies, and the
amount of time or money that was reasonable to expend in performing the service need not be segregated
among the claims it advanced.

The jury must then consider the evidence that particular amounts of time or money were reasonable for the
performance of legal services necessary to the litigation of a claim for which attorneys’ fees are available. In
doing so, the jury weighs the evidence and considers (1) the time and labor involved, the novelty and difficulty
of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (2) the likelihood that the
acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily
charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship
with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or uncertainty of collection before the legal
services have been rendered. See Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex.
1997) (citing Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 1.04(B)(1), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G
app. A (State Bar R., art. X, §9)); Lesikar, 237 S.W.3d at 375-76. After the jury determines the reasonable
amount of fees necessary to litigate Carolyn’s claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act and section 114.064
of the Texas Property Code, the trial court will exercise its discretion in determining how much of this amount it
is equitable and just to award, and render judgment accordingly.   In Re Lesikar, NO. 14-09-00016-CV (Tex.
App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2009)(Guzman)(scope of remand, discovery mandamus denied)(segregation
of attorney's fees required, no fees for non-suited claims) (jury trial improperly denied)

TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HO USTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE