Section 47a-21
- Citation
- Section 47a-21
- Parent Document
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2013-03-19
Other Sections in This Document (52)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
Full Text
767 chars“The Johnson court set forth twelve factors for determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee award, and they are: the time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the questions; the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; the customary fee; whether the fee is fixed or contingent; time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; the amount involved and the results obtained; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; the ‘undesirability’ of the case; the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and awards in similar cases.” Laudano v. New Haven, 58 Conn. App. 819, 823 n.9, 755 A.2d 907 (2000).