It’s rare that I post twice in the same day.
Earlier today, I posted a blog with “quick tips” to reduce stress. In it, I mentioned what I’ve mentioned often over the past few months: in my opinion, incivility by lawyers contributes to stress and negatively impacts lawyer well-being.
If not being a jerk for its own sake isn’t enough, here, perhaps, is motivation to be more civil: a California appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s decision to use a lawyer’s incivility as part of the basis to award a lower fee than the lawyer had requested.
The opinion is here. Thank you to Geoffrey Bok for sending it me. Geoff is admitted in Vermont and Massachusetts, is the former chair of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners, and is an excellent resource on matters related to legal ethics and professional responsibility.
Per the opinion, a lawyer hired a contractor to work on the lawyer’s home. After paying the contractor more than $92,651, the lawyer instructed the contractor to stop. The lawyer was not satisfied with the work and claimed that the contractor owed him $35,096. The contractor agreed that he owed the lawyer a refund, but only $13,000. The lawyer sued.
The lawyer prevailed. Under California law, the lawyer was entitled to judgment in the entire amount he had paid to the contractor – $92, 651 – even though he’d received the benefit of work that not a single witness had “impugned.” The trial court also awarded the lawyer just over $30,000 in other damages and costs. By law, the lawyer was entitled to attorney’s fees.
If you don’t believe the next line, please refer to pages 5 and 6 of the opinion. The lawyer requested “$271,530 in attorney fees, $52,021 in discovery sanctions, and $203,646 for proving matters at trial that had been denied in discovery.” The trial court determined that the lawyer had not provided sufficient evidence to assess whether the fee request was reasonable and gave the lawyer additional time to make the argument. The trial court instructed the lawyer to limit additional argument to 10 pages of text, plus any exhibits.
The lawyer submitted additional evidence – 11 pages of text, over 400 pages of exhibits – and requested an additional $16,000 in fees.
In the end, the trial court awarded $90,000 in fees. Among the factors that the court cited in declining to award the full amount requested was the lawyer’s incivility and over-litigation of the matter.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the lawyer was not entitled to the full amount requested. In so doing, the appellate court commented on the lawyer’s incivility. The comments begin on page 15. Here are excerpts, with citations omitted:
“Fifth, the court correctly noted the incivility in (the lawyer’s) briefing. Attorney skill is a traditional touchstone for deciding whether to adjust a lodestar. Civility is an aspect of skill.
Excellent lawyers deserve higher fees, and excellent lawyers are civil. Sound logic and bitter experience support these points.
Civility is an ethical component of professionalism. Civility is desirable in litigation, not only because it is ethically required for its own sake, but also because it is socially advantageous: it lowers the costs of dispute resolution. The American legal profession exists to help people resolve disputes cheaply, swiftly, fairly, and justly. Incivility between counsel is sand in the gears.
Incivility can rankle relations and thereby increase the friction, extent, and cost of litigation. Calling opposing counsel a liar, for instance, can invite destructive reciprocity and generate needless controversies. Seasoning a disagreement with avoidable irritants can turn a minor conflict into a costly and protracted war. All those human hours, which could have been put to socially productive uses, instead are devoted to the unnecessary war and are lost forever. All sides lose, as does the justice system, which must supervise the hostilities.
By contrast, civility in litigation tends to be efficient by allowing disputants to focus on core disagreements and to minimize tangential distractions. It is a salutary incentive for counsel in fee-shifting cases to know their own low blows may return to hit them in the pocketbook.”