09-3007 & 09-3996 Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Attorney fees

Individual scrutiny of line-item entries is not necessary or appropriate in contractual fee-shifting cases.
“Emigrant submits that allowing the submission of redacted bills effectively amounts to a prepayment standard- if the prevailing party has paid its legal bills, the opposing party must pay those costs. This result, in Emigrant’s view, would vitiate the reasonableness requirement. In Medcom, however, we took the view that, in the normal course of adjudication, ‘reasonableness must be assessed using the market’s mechanisms,’ 200 F.3d at 520, and that aggregate costs should be reviewed for reasonableness in relation to certain other factors, id. at 521. Of course, special circumstances may arise in 22 which a district court will have reason to doubt whether market considerations alone were sufficient to ensure reasonable fees. In those instances, the district court, as a matter of its sound discretion, can require additional information of the parties. In such instances, of course, the court must proceed with due regard for the attorney-client privilege and for the protection of other confidential and proprietary information. Here, we are convinced that none of the concerns articulated by Emigrant were of such moment as to make it an abuse of discretion for the district court to decline to depart from the approach established in Medcom. Here, the district court made the determination of reasonableness on the basis of not only the presumptive validity of market forces, but also the affidavits of the parties which assured the court that rates had been negotiated, supporting documentation had been reviewed and pertinent questions asked. The court also was faced with a situation in which the party challenging the fees as excessive had declined to reveal its own fees as a measure of a reasonable expenditure. Indeed, while criticizing Metavante for retaining an out-of-town firm to handle the trial, Emigrant itself proceeded with a comparable out-of-town firm of its own. Emigrant also makes much out of the fact that some legal costs were incurred by Metavante after it was aware of its status as the prevailing party. Given the district court’s awareness of how Metavante’s general counsel and its outside counsel had negotiated the fee arrangement, we believe that the court acted within the bounds of its discretion in determining that no additional guarantee of reasonableness was required.”

Affirmed.

09-3007 & 09-3996 Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Ripple, J.

Full Text