ILNews

COA: Award fees for litigation costs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals instructed a trial court today to follow its guidance on remand to determine the amount of money to award to a man who wants to recover fees for litigation at the trial and appellate levels. The court hopes to avoid another appeal of the case.

In Christopher Scott Barker v. City of West Lafayette and Officer Adam S. Ferguson,  No. 79A02-0804-CV-384, Christopher Barker appealed the denial of fees related to his litigation to recover fees. After being acquitted of resisting law enforcement and battery upon a law enforcement officer charges, Barker sued the city of West Lafayette on federal claims of false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. The jury found in favor of Barker on his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. He filed a petition to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. The trial court awarded him nearly $50,000, relying on Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).

Barker appealed, and on remand the trial court recalculated his fees based on the lodestar method and awarded him $92,906. The trial court didn't believe he should receive compensation for the federal claim he lost or the fact the trial court originally relied on Johnson to calculate the fees.

Barker then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court granted without a hearing or receiving a response from the city. The trial court set aside its previous decision in its entirety, recalculated Barker's attorney fees at a higher hourly rate, but stated it didn't compensate him for the lost claim or its previous use of Johnson. The new order included fees related to his excessive force claim but denied him nearly $57,000 in fees for litigation of the fee issue in the trial court, on appeal, and on remand.

The city filed a motion to correct error, arguing they weren't allowed sufficient time to respond to Barker's motion to correct error; the trial court re-affirmed its order.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals ruled Barker was entitled the nearly $57,000 in fees for litigation that the trial court had denied because he was the prevailing party. The city's argument that Barker led the trial court to use Johnson to calculate his original fee award was unpersuasive, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

The appellate court affirmed the award of fees related to the excessive force claim, the hourly rate used by the trial court to calculate Barker's attorney fees award, and the award of paralegal fees. It found there was no reversible error committed by the trial court when it re-affirmed and re-entered its prior order, wrote the judge.

Judge Crone wrote in a footnote at the end of the opinion that the trial court should consider the Court of Appeals' guidance when determining on remand the amount of fees Barker is entitled to in order to avoid another appeal of the case and further expenditure of public funds.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Legal services required!
    please do your firm handles cases on breach of contract? please advise...

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT