Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877801%20orderandopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,723 chars

testified that he conducted a careful review of counsels’ time records and opined that

their reported number of hours—which equated to 1.5 weeks of full-time work—was

conservative, reasonable, and necessary to achieve the successful result and

evidenced “excellent billing judgment and work efficiency.” Fulton testified that in his

experience, drafting summary judgments alone can require 30 to 40 hours of work.

Here, Fulton noted, counsels met with the Cromars, evaluated their legal issues, drafted

a summons and complaint, conducted discovery, corresponded with defense counsel,

drafted summary judgment motion, communicated with trial court and the Cromars, and

drafted attorney fee motion. Fulton emphasized that counsels’ work achieved an

excellent outcome for the Cromars; “a victory on summary judgment with double

damages …. [, which] represents a complete recovery plus all available additional

damages.”

Considering the power disparity between landlords and tenants, Fulton also

opined that the Cromars were fortunate to find competent counsel willing and able to

assume the risks in representing them on a contingent-fee basis and that, aligned with

the purpose of the RLTA, counsels were able to achieve an outcome that made the

Cromars whole and deterred future unlawful conduct. Fulton testified that a court’s

failure to make fair and reasonable fee awards in such matters, individuals like the

Cromars would be unable to find experienced or competent counsel willing to take on

their cases to hold debt collectors accountable.

TAG Realty filed an opposition, arguing in part that the Cromars’ requested

attorney fees should be reduced because counsels’ hourly rates were unreasonable