Uncategorized
However, courts much more often emphasize the marginal relevance that the opposing lawyer`s total fees have for determining appropriate attorneys` fees to which the winning party is entitled. In Stowe v. Walkers Building Supply, Inc., 431 so. 2d 180 (fla. 2d DCA 1983), the Second District cancelled the award of attorneys` fees where the award was based exclusively on the amount of costs awarded to another lawyer in the case.65 In Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., No. 8:08-CV-2446-T-27TMM, 2012 WL 5387830 (M.D. Fla. Nov.
2, 2012), the court fairly compared the hours spent by the applicant`s lawyers in determining what was appropriate and necessary for the defendant`s lawyers.66 In particular, the HDR court found that the applicant`s attempts to compare what the dominant defendant had spent on his lawyers and what other defendants had spent on their lawyers, “were not helpful” because (1) the other defendants allied themselves against the dominant defendant, who increased the stake in favor of the winning defendant; and (2) the joint efforts of the other defendants made it difficult and unfair to make a one-by-one comparison with the dominant accused.67 The court recognized that the billing documents – which are only useful if they describe what the lawyer did in this case – reveal the lawyer`s thought processes with respect to the prosecution or defense of the case. The court explained that the disclosure of billing documents as a whole would provide a roadmap for how the insurer (or represented party) plans to pursue the case in question (and, in the case of parties to a repeated lawsuit, provide a roadmap on how the insurer plans to pursue other MDL cases). In conclusion, the Tribunal concluded that information relating to a counterparty`s lawyer`s fees is not relevant, except in unusual circumstances, since there is no reasonable hope that such information will contribute to the resolution of the dispute. Moreover, any marginal relevance that might theoretically exist would not far exceed competing concerns about inappropriate bias, confusion of problems, and abusive discovery practices. In addition to the lack of actual probative value, disclosure of the settlement information of a counterparty`s lawyers should generally not be allowed for these additional reasons. [14] Wisconsin has not yet decided whether such a discovery is admissible, but courts in other jurisdictions have often considered the issue and are distributed among their stocks. The majority of courts are allowed to open the attorneys` fees of an opposing party in these circumstances. As one court stated, “defendant`s fees may provide the best comparable standard available to measure the adequacy of the applicants` expenses in conducting the issues of the case.” Chicago Prof`l Sports Ltd. P`ship v.
Nat`l Basketball Ass`n, 1996 WL 66111, at *3 (N.D. Feb. 13, 1996). As another court found, “the time spent by the defense attorney …