The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter Helpful Links Texas Consumer Complaint Center Credit Reports and Identity Theft Your Guide to Small Claims Court Contact Us 1-713-743-2168 |
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the DayIf you buy a new car you have three days to change your mind, right? Wrong! Unless you have were misled, deceived, or otherwise tricked into signing the contract, once you sign you are bound. If you are not sure, don't sign. FDA Investigates Compounding PharmaciesThe Food and Drug Administration is cracking down on compounding pharmacies across the nation. In the last couple months alone, more than 700 people became sick and more than 50 people died after a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts manufactured vials of steroids contaminated with meningitis. IRS Offers Several Payment OptionsIt's Tax Day! Tax Season Big Business for Auto DealersTax refund season means big business for auto dealers. Unfortunately, that means many consumers will be in the market for a vehicle around the same time. The increase in demand could drive prices up at many dealerships. As a result, it may not be the best time to buy. Your MoneyWhen will you be debt free?
For the LawyersLodestar attorney’s fees should consider amount of recovery. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the amount at stake in a lemon law case should have been considered in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees to be awarded under the lodestar method. The plaintiff recovered $230,000 in attorney fees and costs, based largely on over 600 hours billed by the plaintiff’s attorneys at $350 to $375 per hour. The state Supreme Court first concluded that the lodestar method is the proper approach for determining reasonable attorney fees under state lemon law. The court agreed with the defendant that the amount involved in the litigation and the results obtained must be considered when determining fees under the lodestar method. “It is true that a cap on fees or an examination of the proportionality between the amount of recovery and the fees expended could hamper the ability of consumers to vindicate their rights relative to inexpensive products. But ignoring, as the [trial] court did, the amount involved in the litigation contravenes the principles that underlie statutory attorney fees provisions….” “[Trial] courts, therefore, are directed to exclude from fee awards ‘hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.’ Because billing judgment is necessarily related to the merits of the case and the amount at issue in a consumer protection case, divorcing an award of attorney fees entirely from the amount at stake in the litigation would relieve attorneys from the need to exercise such judgment.”
|
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |