Court of Appeals affirms 25% reduction in attorneys fees despite successful appeal

The trial court's discretionary authority to award attorneys' fees is difficult to challenge on appeal. This case highlights that dynamic. 

The case is Franco v. Gunsalus, a summary order issued on May 1. I briefed and argued the appeal. Plaintiff was falsely arrested and beaten up by a Syracuse police officer. A second officer was also found liable for false arrest. The lawsuit pled numerous other claims and sought a ton of money in damages. The jury returned a verdict on the false arrest, malicious prosecution and excessive force claims, awarding $5,001.00 in damages. The other claims were dismissed prior to trial or rejected by the jury. After the jury returned the verdict, the City took up an appeal, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiff's counsel moved for attorneys' fees; the civil rights laws award such fees to prevailing parties. The fee motion is the subject of this appeal.

The trial court reduced the overall attorneys' fees by 25%, including the work expended in successfully defending the verdict post-trial and on appeal. In performing that work, plaintiff's counsel was no longer defending failed claims; he was defending successful claims that the City was trying to overturn on appeal. Yet, the district court, in ruling on the attorneys' fees motion, extended the 25% overall reduction in fees to the post-verdict work, including the appeal. The "lost" fees post-verdict amounted to about $15,000.

The Court of Appeals holds the trial court acted within its discretion in applying the 25% reduction to post-verdict work defending the trial victory in both the district court and the Second Circuit. Here we deal with the broad discretion that district courts enjoy in awarding attorneys' fees. Those rulings can be appealed, but 95% of those appeals affirm the district court's ruling. This case was different, we argued, because the 25% overall reduction cut back on fees in defending the verdict, challenges raised by the City. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's ruling, noting that the jury awarded far less than the amount sought in the complaint, and various claims were dismissed prior to trial or rejected by the jury.

While the Court of Appeals (Menashi, Chin and Jacobs) notes that some trial courts "have calculated fees with a method that distinguishes between trial and post-verdict work, no applicable precedent mandates that approach." Without binding precedent on this issue, the Court of Appeals follows the Supreme Court's overall direction that courts "should focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff throughout the litigation as as whole."