Illinois’ Federal Court Holds Awarded Attorneys’ Fees Proportionate to Success in Suit against Police Officer; Chicago Free from Liability

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the lower district court’s granting of reduced attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff in the amount of $123,165.24. The district court determined that the reduced award was proportionate to the plaintiff’s attorneys’ efforts in the winning claim against Darrin Macon, a Chicago police officer, and the district court refused to find the City of Chicago (“City”) liable for the costs. On January 22, 2014, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment against the plaintiff to pay the City’s cost as the City had prevailed at trial.

The plaintiff, Andrew Richardson, was arrested and charged with assault and battery after allegedly striking Macon with a baseball bat during a confrontation where Macon had harmlessly fired his gun while off duty. The charges were eventually dropped and Richardson subsequently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against his arresting officers, Macon, the City and others. Richardson raised 39 claims, such as Macon firing his gun and deficient policies of the City. Richardson lost all claims at trial except the one against Macon for firing his gun. The jury awarded Richardson $1.00 in nominal damages – to be paid by the City as Macon had acted under state law and had a gun issued by the City – and $3,000 in punitive damages against Macon.

Richardson next sought attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, asking for more than $675,000. In considering this request, the district court attempted to examine the time spent by Macon’s attorneys on successful and unsuccessful filings and claims against the defendants. However, after eliminating time spent on successful filings, the district court could not distinguish the hours dedicated by the attorneys to Macon’s winning claims versus his losing claims. The district court consequently reduced the lodestar – the mark value of an attorney’s fees per hour multiplied by total hours – by approximately 80%, relying specifically on the unsuccessful litigation. The award, assessed against Macon, was 20% of the fees sought by Richardson. Also, as the City prevailed against Richardson, Richardson was liable of the City’s costs.

Finally, Richardson argued that a percentage reduction of attorney’s fees is never permitted. The Court of Appeals reasoned that while this prohibition might apply to a reduction based on a plaintiff’s recovery, it did not apply to a reduction based on an attorney’s bill. According to the court of appeals, a court may determine an attorney’s hours spent on successful claims, calculate the lodestar based on those hours and determine if the lodestar is reasonable in light of a plaintiff’s success. However, if a court cannot separate the hours dedicated to the winning claims from those of the losing claims, an estimated reduction may be the sole option left to the court.

After considering that Richardson had turned down a generous settlement offer and recovered an insignificant award at trial, the court of appeals held that Richardson’s subsequent award of attorney’s fees was more than appropriate. See: Richardson v. City of Chicago, 740 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. Ill. 2014).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case