In the case of State ex rel. Stafford v. Carpenter, 2022-Ohio-3848, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in its calculation of attorney fees awarded to relator in an action brought against a school board for violations of the Open Meetings Act.
Here, the relator argued that the trial court erred in reducing one of his attorney’s hourly rates from $325 to $200 without supporting evidence, to which the respondents argued that the relator failed to prove the reasonableness of the $325 per hour rate. The relator also argued that the trial court erred in reducing the hours for which he was entitled to an attorney-fee award by 30 percent without any justification, denying attorney fees associated with a fee application, failing to identify which fees were rejected, which were accepted, and why, denying expert fees as costs, and excluding two pages of billing summaries. The Court partially agreed with the relator.
In support of its decision, the Court reasoned that the record supported a reduction in the hourly rate, but not to the extent that the trial court had reduced it. The Court held that the record supported a reduction to a $250 hourly rate based on the attorney’s experience, the law firm’s typical hourly rate for associates and partners, the typical hourly rate in that geographical area, and fee experts’ testimony. The Court found that the rest of the relator’s arguments lacked merit.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.