Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,790 chars

37
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

technician, Nick Sacco, because that work was “purely clerical or IT-related.” We

remand on this point.

A trial court may include the time of non-lawyer personnel in an attorney fee

award after considering six criteria:

(1) the services performed by the non-lawyer personnel must be
legal in nature; (2) the performance of these services must be
supervised by an attorney; (3) the qualifications of the person
performing the services must be specified in the request for fees in
sufficient detail to demonstrate that the person is qualified by virtue
of education, training, or work experience to perform substantive
legal work; (4) the nature of the services performed must be specified
in the request for fees in order to allow the reviewing court to
determine that the services performed were legal rather than clerical;
(5) as with attorney time, the amount of time expended must be set
forth and must be reasonable; and (6) the amount charged must
reflect reasonable community standards for charges by that category
of personnel.

Absher, 79 Wn. App. at 844-45. “For the recovery of fees of nonlawyers, the court

must consider [the] six factors identified in Absher.” State v. Mandatory Poster

Agency, Inc., 199 Wn. App. 506, 531, 398 P.3d 1271 (2017) (emphasis added).

Here, the trial court did not adequately explain the basis for its award of fees

for Dondero’s and Sacco’s work. For any award of attorney fees, the general rule

is that the trial court must “supply findings of fact and conclusion of law sufficient

to permit a reviewing court to determine why the trial court awarded the amount in

question.” White v. Clark County, 188 Wn. App. 622, 639, 354 P.3d 38 (2015)