Issue: Is the reimbursement of attorney’s fees under the False Claims Act (FCA), or qui tam, claim based on current market rates in the relevant community?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Attorney's fees; False Claims Act (FCA); Current market rates |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 90 F. 3d 1397; 729 F.3d 1196; 264 F.3d 702; 753 F.2d 262; 426 F.3d 694; 89 F.3d 1031 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 09/01/2014 |
Like other fee-shifting statutes, the False Claims prescribes the compensation of prevailing party’s counsel at current market rates in the relevant community. Critically, that rate is a “factual question:” the court may not substitute its judgment of an appropriate or fair rate for the judgment of the market but is rather to determine the actual market rate. Cunningham v. City of McKeesport, 753 F.2d 262, 267 (3d Cir. 1985) TA l "Cunningham v. City of McKeesport, 753 F.2d 262 (3d Cir. 1985)" s "Cunningham v. City of McKeesport, 753 F.2d 262, 267 (3d Cir. 1985)" c 1 (reversing determination not to award counsel’s usual billing rate). It follows, and the law is clear, that the strongest evidence of the prevailing market rate, is “an attorney’s customary billing rate,” which is presumptively reasonable under the lodestar. McGee v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17199, *49 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2009) TA l "McGee v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17199 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2009)" s "McGee v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17199, at *49 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2009)" c 1 ; Cunningham, 753 F.2d at 267-68 TA s "Cunningham v. City of McKeesport, 753 F.2d 262, 267 (3d Cir. 1985)" (“an attorney’s time is generally reflected in his normal billing rate”); Small v. Richard Wolf Med. Instruments Corp., 264 F.3d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 2001) TA l […]