The Laffey Matrix is a fee schedule used by many United States courts for determining the proper hourly rates for professional legal work.
Overview
More than one methodology may used in calculating the applicable Laffey rate, yielding somewhat different results. Courts in the United States look to the Laffey Matrix when they award attorneys' fees under a fee-shifting statute, such as the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act.
Attorney fee reasonable hourly rates
Guidelines for reasonable hourly rates for attorneys were set by a federal court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. , 572 F.Supp. 354, 371 (D.D.C. 1983), who ruled that hourly rates for attorneys practicing civil law in the Washington, DC metropolitan area could be categorized by years in practice and adjusted yearly for inflation. The fees awarded in this case were for work done primarily in 1981 and 1982. To determine reasonable rates for later periods, the United States Attorney’s Office has adjusted these original rates in accordance with changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Washington-Baltimore area. The result has been a routinely updated United States Attorney’s Office Matrix; a table which provides hourly rates, based on years of experience, for attorneys, paralegals and law clerks in the Washington, D.C. area.
The United States Attorney in the Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to use a version of the Laffey Matrix, whereby a legal fee Matrix from the Court is used as the basis, and then the CPI for "all goods and services" in the DC area is used to update the fees. (US Attorney's Office, District of Columbia 2005)
One court, The District Court for the District of Columbia, has instead ruled that it is more appropriate to utilize an adjusted Adjusted Laffey Matrix. See McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001)
The Third Circuit Court of Federal Appeals adopted the Adjusted Laffey Matrix. Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell International, Inc., 426 F.3d 694 (3rd Cir. 2005). ("In updating the matrix to account for inflation from 1989-2003, ICO relied on the legal services component of the nationwide Consumer Price Index (“the Legal Services Index”), a measure of inflation in the cost of legal services maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics."). The Court of Appeals noted that the District Court "reviewed both indices and decided that represented a better measure of prevailing rates in Washington, DC. In so doing, it relied on a decision by the District Court for the District of Columbia, Salazar v. District of Columbia, 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C.2000), which compared the U.S. Attorney's Laffey Matrix with a matrix similar to that put forward by ICO in this case and concluded that the latter method was superior. Salazar is one of the few decisions approving the use of this approach, and it is, according to ICO, the only decision (prior to the District Court decision in this case) comparing the two approaches."
The Fourth Circuit expressly disapproved reliance on the Laffey Matrix in Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009), requiring instead that fee awards be based on prevailing market rates established by evidence.
Some California Federal courts have accepted the same methodology, adjusting the Laffey Matrix upwards based upon the higher costs of living in Los Angeles and other California cities. In Re HPL Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation , 366 F.Supp.2d 912, 921 (N. Dist. Cal. 2005). See also “It is the practice of the undersigned judge, however, to rely on official data to determine appropriate hourly rates, not on an attorney's self-proclaimed rates or declarations regarding hourly rates charged by law firms. One reliable official source for rates that vary by experience levels is the Laffey matrix used in the District of Columbia.” Garnes v. Barnhardt, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938 (N. Dist. Cal. 2006).
Other courts have rejected the Adjusted Laffey Matrix, particularly for cases in the Washington-Baltimore region, and instead continue to rely on the original Laffey Matrix (also known as the USAO Laffey Matrix). See, e.g., Pleasants v. Ridge, 424 F. Supp. 2d 67, n.2 (D.D.C. 2006) and Judicial Watch, Inc. v. BLM, No. 07-1570, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49069.
Despite the initial appeal of using a consumer price index for legal services to update the hourly rates for legal services, closer examination reveals the inappropriateness of it in many cases. The Legal Services component of the National CPI measures price changes in simple legal services used by household consumers, such as basic wills, uncontested divorces, power of attorneys and DWI defenses. Prices for business related services and complex litigation cases are excluded from the index. Contingency fees such as those that are commonly used in litigation settings are not taken into account since they are not relevant to these basic consumer legal services. To determine prices, the BLS contacts practicing attorneys and records prices for a defined “procedure” (such as an uncontested divorce) rather than an hourly unit of an attorney’s or paralegal’s time. Discounted fees are not incorporated into the data unless the contacted attorney routinely gives one for a specific service. The US CPI for Legal Services is not specific to Washington, DC, and so a national price index to update regional rates is also problematic. For these reasons many courts and expert economists continue to rely on the original Laffey Matrix for litigation cases in the DC area.
Calculation
"The initial estimate of a reasonable attorney's fee "--the so-called lodestar fee--" is properly calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate." Sexcius v. District of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 919, 921 (D.D.C. 1993) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891, 104 S. Ct. 1541 (1984)) aff'd Covington v. District of Columbia, 313 U.S. App. D.C. 16, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Covington II ). Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).
Normally, a prevailing party must establish a reasonable hourly rate, usually with affidavits and other evidence of the market rate. Kling v. Department of Justice, MSPB Dkt. No. AT075299048 (July 22, 1980)). “Affidavits are a particularly appropriate means of establishing the reasonableness of the amount of fees claimed. Kling, supra. A reasonable hourly rate may also be established by affidavits from other attorneys in the community with similar experience stating the rates that they charge fee-paying clients in similar cases. See Montreuil v. Department of the Air Force, 55 M.S.P.R. 685, 690-91 (1992) (citing Swanson v. Defense Logistics Agency, 35 M.S.P.R. 115, 119 (1987)).
In addition to affidavits and prior fee settlements, the Laffey Matrix is very useful as a guide to Market Rate attorney fees for the Baltimore / Washington area. The Laffey Matrix has been cited as good evidence of the Market Rate for attorneys practicing in federal employment arbitration matters. See Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration and AFGE, 93 FLRR 1-4011 (1993); Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC and NTEU, 93 FLRR 1-1283, 48 FLRA No. 100, 48 FLRA 931 (1993); Hatfield v. Garrett, 90 FEOR 1046 (EEOC 1989).Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F.Supp. 354, 371 (D.D.C. 1983); Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc).
Regarding the “updated version of the Laffey matrix,” the Court in McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594 (RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001) stated in part:
"Plaintiffs may point to such evidence as an updated version of the Laffey matrix or the U.S. Attorney's Office matrix, or their own survey" to demonstrate the prevailing market rates in the community. n5 Covington II, 57 F.3d at 1109. Moreover, the plaintiffs may supplement any matrix that has been offered with "evidence of recent fees awarded by the court." Id. "Finally, the defendants may challenge plaintiff attorneys' market data, in an effort to show that the submitted market rates are inaccurate." Id. at 1110; see also Covington v. District of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 894, 898 (D.D.C. 1993) (Covington I) (permitting defendants a chance to persuade court on what prevailing market rates are) aff'd Covington II, 313 U.S. App. D.C. 16, 57 F.3d 1101; Cf. Oil and Chemical Workers, 2001 WL 427287, at *7 (allowing the defendant to propose alternate methods of compensation for attorneys who did not meet the other factors for receiving compensation).
n5 The matrix may be found in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983)
Here, while the plaintiffs do not give an updated Laffey matrix, they do cite the matrix. n6 (Plaintiffs' Motion for fees at 3). Moreover, plaintiffs also supplement their motion by presenting cases that show an increase in the Laffey scale. For example, the plaintiffs attached Dorsett to show an increase of fees to $ 280 per hour. (Plaintiffs' Unpublished Cases); Dorsett v. District of Columbia, No. 00- 212, slip op. (D.D.C. Sep. 12, 2000). The plaintiffs also included Wingfield to justify a fee award of $ 335 per hour. n7 (Plaintiffs' Notice of Supp. Case); Wingfield v. District of Columbia, No. 00-121, slip op. at 6 (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2001). Finally, recent cases such as Salazar have justified an award of $ 444 per hour and $ 369 per hour based on an updated version
Maryland Drunk Driving Lawyers
Top Maryland Drunk Driving Lawyer,Leading Drunk Driving Lawyer Maryland,Experienced Maryland Drunk Driving,Drunk Driving Lawyer in Maryland,Top Lawyer in Maryland,Maryland Auto ...
Maryland DWI Lawyers
Keeping a DWI off of your permanent record in Maryland is very important. For help in avoiding a conviction, hire knowledgeable DWI lawyers.
Maryland DUI / DWI Attorney Profiles - MD Lawyers - Cornell LII Lawyer ...
Lawyers MD - Attorney Profiles DUI / DWI Maryland - Cornell LII Lawyer Directory
Waldorf DUI DWI Law Firms | Maryland (MD) DUI DWI Lawyers, Attorneys ...
Find a Waldorf, Maryland (MD) DUI DWI law firm or lawyer. Contact a DUI DWI attorney in Waldorf, Maryland (MD) by phone, fax or email on Lawyers.com.
Baltimore DUI / DWI Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys, Law firms ...
Find Baltimore DUI / DWI Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys, Law firms - MD - DUI / DWI lawyers in Baltimore Maryland
Rockville DUI DWI Law Firms | Maryland (MD) DUI DWI Lawyers, Attorneys ...
Find a Rockville, Maryland (MD) DUI DWI law firm or lawyer. Contact a DUI DWI attorney in Rockville, Maryland (MD) by phone, fax or email on Lawyers.com.
DWI Lawyers ::
P.O. Box 1172 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Tel: (201) 525-1555 info@dwilawyers.com
Parkville DUI / DWI Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys, Law firms ...
Find Parkville DUI / DWI Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys, Law firms - MD - DUI / DWI lawyers in Parkville Maryland
Baltimore Maryland DWI Attorneys and Baltimore County MD DWI Lawyers ...
Baltimore County DWI Attorneys handling DWI, DUI and drunk driving cases in Baltimore, Maryland and all of Baltimore County. Baltimore DWI Lawyers Meng and Alpert. MD DWI lawyer.
Maryland DWI Attorney | Baltimore DUI Lawyers
Baltimore, Maryland attorneys, Jimeno & Gray, defend individuals charged with drunk driving, including DUI and DWI. Don't wait for deadlines to pass, contact us today.