583:
services whereas the CPI is based on a basket of general goods that is dominated by the cost of housing, food, etc.; 3. the LSI includes some services associated with litigation, such as preparing briefs and attending depositions; 4. the
Washington, D.C. market for complex federal litigation is a national market where firms from across the country compete to provide such services; 5. market data shows that the LSI-Adjusted
563:
primarily for flat-fee services rather than hourly rates; 4) The LSI does not take into account discounted rates, contingency fees, and other reasons actual collected rates may differ from hourly billing rates; and 5) Actual hourly billing rates of attorneys in the
Washington, D.C. area are, according to published survey data, more accurately represented by rates outlined in the USAO
25:
510:“It is the practice of the undersigned judge, however, to rely on official data to determine appropriate hourly rates, not on an attorney's self-proclaimed rates or declarations regarding hourly rates charged by law firms. One reliable official source for rates that vary by experience levels is the Laffey matrix used in the District of Columbia.”
230:
on attorneys situated as
Yablonski and Galloway are here. Henceforth, the prevailing market rate method heretofore used in awarding fees to traditional for-profit firms and public interest legal services organizations shall apply as well to those attorneys who practice privately and for profit but at
322:
Matrix from 1982 and adjusted it annually using changes in the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Washington-Baltimore area. The result was a routinely adjusted United States Attorney's Office Matrix: a table which provided hourly rates, based on years of
582:
Matrix is a better reflection of the
District of Columbia market for complex federal litigation for the following reasons: 1. it is based on more recent observations (1989 data compared to 1982 data), which is more likely to produce a better forecast of actual rates; 2. the LSI is specific to legal
541:
The Bureau of Labor
Statistics has maintained the LSI since 1987 and the PPI-OL since 1997. For the years they have in common, these two indices report comparable rates of price change for legal services. This means that when the same hourly rate is adjusted with the LSI compared to the PPI-OL, the
562:
Matrix for the following reasons: 1) The LSI measures prices changes in basic, personal, consumer-oriented legal services such as uncontested divorce and DUI and not complex federal litigation; 2) The LSI is a nationwide average index and not specific to the D.C. metropolitan region; 3) The LSI is
335:
Matrix. It is also based on rates for the
Washington metro area (which includes areas in West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, and Washington, DC), not just the District of Columbia. For these reasons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the new matrix as reflecting rates for
472:
426 F.3d 694 (3rd Cir. 2005)("In updating the matrix to account for inflation from 1989-2003, ICO relied on the legal services component of the nationwide
Consumer Price Index ('the Legal Services Index'), a measure of inflation in the cost of legal services maintained by the Bureau of Labor
330:
Matrix. Its matrix is now based on data from a 2010-2011 ALM survey adjusted using the
Producer Price Index-Office of Lawyers (PPI-OL) index (the "USAO Matrix"). The USAO Matrix is based on rates for all types of legal services, not exclusively complex federal litigation like the
473:
Statistics."). The Court of
Appeals noted that the District Court "reviewed both indices and decided that represented a better measure of prevailing rates in Washington, DC. The Third Circuit issued a similar affirmance of a fee award based on the LSI-Adjusted
416:
estimate of the actual cost of legal services in this area'" (emphasis in original). It concluded that “he District, neither below nor on appeal, rebuts this logic with relevant arguments.” The Court noted that the fact that other courts have applied the USAO
297:
Matrix. These methods produced different hourly rates due to the use of different inflation metrics. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia also developed a new matrix in 2015, but it was rejected by the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
727:
USAO Matrix base data with United States’ confirmation of base data, and declaration explaining that the base ALM data is “actual average billing rates of attorneys in the Washington, DC area, from law offices of all sizes and types.”
614:
Matrix can be adjusted for local costs using the Bureau of Labor Statistics data on wages paid to lawyers (occupation code 23-1011) and paralegals (occupation code 23-2011) for primary metropolitan statistical areas in each state
537:
The CPI is a broad index that includes price changes for over 100,000 commodities, most of which are not relevant to legal services. Both the LSI and the PPI-OL measure a national rate of change of prices for legal services.
760:
265:
The applicant for a fee award must establish the prevailing market rates. To establish the prevailing market rates in the District of Columbia, the applicant "may point to such evidence as an updated version of the
175:
379:
Matrix adjusted by the Legal Services Component of the Consumer Price Index referred to as the Legal Services Index or the LSI. The LSI is provided monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The LSI-Adjusted
860:
838:
205:
did not intend the private but public-spirited rate-cutting attorney to be penalized for his public spiritedness by being paid on a lower scale than either his higher priced fellow
243:
Matrix provided market rates for the period from June 1, 1981, through May 31, 1982, based on different levels of experience. At the urging of the D.C. Circuit in its
452:
924 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Thereafter, the USAO stated that it was working with other parties to develop a revised matrix for complex federal litigation.
408:
809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court that the evidence presented by plaintiffs demonstrates that "the LSI-Updated
448:
As described above, in 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the new USAO matrix based on the ALM survey data.
178:
rejected use of the matrix in favor of the firm's actual billing rate, thus restricting fee awards to small firms, such as the counsel in
151:. That evidence was analyzed and a matrix of rates for attorneys at various experience levels was created, later becoming known as the
311:
347:
Matrix or the new USAO Matrix should be used instead of the Legal Service Index (LSI) adjustment method presumably because the USAO
68:
50:
39:
35:
318:
Matrix ("USAO Laffey Matrix") as a basis for hourly rates for attorneys' fees in litigation claims. This matrix used the original
360:
251:, 857 F.2d at 1525, the matrix was updated through May 31, 1989, in connection with a settlement reached on remand in that case.
829:
Matrix is a matrix developed based on evidence of market rates for complex federal litigation. It is not an official document.
218:, and the panel decision in this case, which it compelled, are both inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in
802:"THE FITZPATRICK MATRIX. Hourly Rates ($ ) for Legal Fees for Complex Federal Litigation in the District of Columbia"
729:
623:
465 U.S. at 892, 895–896, that compensation to some attorneys should be based on costs including salary levels.
270:
Matrix or the U.S. Attorney’s Office matrix, or their own survey of prevailing market rates in the community."
166:
adopted the matrix and expressly rejected the use of the size or type of the law firm in setting hourly rates.
400:
Matrix or the newer USAO Matrix. Some courts in the United States have awarded fees using the LSI-Adjusted
286:
202:
780:
359:
Matrix and the new USAO Matrix when awarding attorneys' fees under a fee-shifting statute, such as the
428:
Matrix, particularly for cases in the Washington-Baltimore region, and have based fee awards the USAO
902:
551:
90:
530:
Matrix is adjusted based on the LSI. The new USAO matrix, which was rejected by the D.C. Circuit in
86:
502:
Matrix upwards based upon the higher costs of living in Los Angeles and other California cities.
112:
865:
D.C. Cir. Case No. 18-7004, p. 493 (Declaration of Michael Kavanaugh, dated September 24, 2016)
843:
D.C. Cir. Case No. 18-7004, p. 491 (Declaration of Michael Kavanaugh, dated September 24, 2016)
887:
227:
708:
226:
to the extent that it imposes the above discussed different method of determining reasonable
465:
144:
638:
See list of fee-shifting statutes at the Appendix to Opinion of Brennan, J., Dissenting in
460:
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a fee award based on the LSI-Adjusted
171:
801:
896:
652:
610:
Another method is to adjust for local costs of wages to lawyers and paralegals. The
262:“does provide an updated and accurate schedule of attorney fees in this District”).
116:, 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), reversed, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), overruled,
323:
experience, for attorneys, paralegals and law clerks in the Washington, D.C. area.
690:
673:
351:
Matrix and the new USAO Matrix produced lower hourly rates than the LSI-Adjusted
209:
from a more established firm or his salaried neighbor at a legal services clinic.
140:
375:, some fee applicants have established the prevailing market rates using the
258:, 705 F. Supp. 705, 709, n. 10 (D.D.C. 1989)(the updated matrix developed in
550:
Laura Malowane of Economists Incorporated is an economist with a Ph.D. from
232:
206:
574:
Dr. Michael Kavanaugh is the economist credited by the D.C. Circuit in the
326:
In 2015, the USAO revised its method. Its matrix is no longer based on the
619:). This method appears to be a re-formulation of the argument rejected in
136:
132:
542:
resulting LSI hourly rate is about the same as the PPI-OL hourly rate.
494:
fee awards be based on prevailing market rates established by evidence.
148:
124:
404:
Matrix. In December 2015, the D.C. Circuit affirmed such a fee award.
94:
470:
Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell International, Inc.,
222:
which construed those statutes. We therefore expressly overrule
118:
875:
DL v. District of Columbia, 860 F.3d. 713, 718 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
674:"Yablonski Affidavit provides information regarding the update"
18:
355:
Matrix. Some courts in the United States have used the USAO
336:
complex federal litigation in the District of Columbia in
587:
Matrix produces rates that are below market and the USAO
484:
The Fourth Circuit expressly disapproved reliance on the
46:
526:
Matrix is adjusted based on the CPI. The LSI-Adjusted
343:
Many defendants have taken the position that the USAO
616:
492:
560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009), requiring instead that
281:
Matrix. Over the years, two methods of adjusting the
514:, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938 (N. Dist. Cal. 2006).
285:Matrix for the passage of time have developed: the
89:for determining the reasonable hourly rates in the
504:In Re HPL Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation
396:Matrix produces higher hourly rates than the USAO
498:Some California federal courts have adjusted the
214:In short, we conclude that our prior decision in
506:, 366 F.Supp.2d 912, 921 (N. Dist. Cal. 2005).
97:fee awards under federal fee-shifting statutes.
598:as to the relative merits of the LSI-Adjusted
490:Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,
761:"LSI-Adjusted Laffey Matrix through May 2020"
249:Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, supra
162:, 465 U.S. 886 (1984), the district court in
16:Fee schedule for District of Columbia lawyers
8:
691:"District of Columbia | Civil Division"
468:, law firm litigating a case in New Jersey.
424:Other courts have rejected the LSI-Adjusted
293:Matrix and the Legal Service Index-Adjusted
440:No. 07-1570, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49069.
384:Matrix is based on the 1989 update of the
186:, 746 F.2d at 24–25. Four years later, in
775:
773:
746:, 267 F.Supp.3d 55, 55-81 (D.D.C. 2017),
740:See, e.g., Heller v. District of Columbia
168:Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., supra
69:Learn how and when to remove this message
594:These same economists also disagreed in
123:, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (
856:
854:
852:
850:
720:
718:
631:
578:case. In his opinion, the LSI-Adjusted
436:424 F. Supp. 2d 67, n.2 (D.D.C. 2006);
361:Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act
274:, 57 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
260:Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel
182:, to their own reduced billing rates.
170:, 572 F. Supp. at 374. On appeal, the
653:"Rezneck Affidavit and Evidence from
554:. She believes that the LSI-Adjusted
479:ICO v. Honeywell International, Inc.,
198:decision (857 F.2d at 1524) stating:
7:
301:
534:, is adjusted based on the PPI-OL.
456:Some decisions from non-D.C. courts
184:Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, supra
742:, 832 F.Supp.2d 32 (D.D.C. 2011);
277:Fee applicants often point to the
216:Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
40:integrate it into the encyclopedia
14:
272:Covington v. District of Columbia
750:, 924 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
602:Matrix and the new USAO matrix.
567:Matrix than in the LSI-Adjusted
406:Salazar v. District of Columbia,
51:that are relevant to the context
23:
558:Matrix is inferior to the USAO
340:924 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
312:United States Attorney's Office
85:is a fee schedule used by many
481:726 F. 3d 744 (3d Cir. 2013).
434:See, e.g., Pleasants v. Ridge,
1:
591:Matrix rates are even lower.
546:Opposing economists' opinions
390:Save Our Cumberland Mountains
338:D.L. v. District of Columbia,
231:reduced rates reflecting non-
188:Save Our Cumberland Mountains
119:Save Our Cumberland Mountains
438:Judicial Watch, Inc. v. BLM,
421:Matrix “is not compelling.”
863:DL v. District of Columbia,
841:DL v. District of Columbia,
450:DL v. District of Columbia,
190:, the D.C. Circuit sitting
919:
744:DL v. District of Columbia
596:DL v. District of Columbia
388:Matrix prepared following
367:LSI-Adjusted Laffey Matrix
861:Joint Appendix Volume 1,
839:Joint Appendix Volume 1,
53:within the existing text.
825:As described above, the
627:References and footnotes
621:Blum v. Stenson, supra,
545:
302:U.S. Attorney's Office
36:links to other articles
412:Matrix 'is probably a
237:
211:
518:The inflation indices
212:
200:
109:Matrix originated in
697:. February 19, 2015.
642:, 473 U.S. 1 (1985).
552:Princeton University
310:For many years, the
147:for complex federal
145:District of Columbia
91:District of Columbia
87:United States courts
47:improve this article
512:Garnes v. Barnhardt
392:. The LSI-Adjusted
617:http://www.bls.gov
444:Another new matrix
127:). Counsel in the
113:Northwest Airlines
79:
78:
71:
910:
876:
873:
867:
858:
845:
836:
830:
823:
817:
816:
814:
812:
798:
792:
791:
789:
777:
768:
767:
765:
757:
751:
737:
731:
722:
713:
712:
705:
699:
698:
687:
681:
680:
678:
670:
664:
663:
661:
649:
643:
636:
466:Washington, D.C.
172:Court of Appeals
74:
67:
63:
60:
54:
49:by adding links
27:
26:
19:
918:
917:
913:
912:
911:
909:
908:
907:
893:
892:
884:
879:
874:
870:
859:
848:
837:
833:
824:
820:
810:
808:
806:www.justice.gov
800:
799:
795:
787:
779:
778:
771:
763:
759:
758:
754:
738:
734:
723:
716:
707:
706:
702:
695:www.justice.gov
689:
688:
684:
676:
672:
671:
667:
659:
651:
650:
646:
640:Marek v. Chesny
637:
633:
629:
608:
548:
520:
458:
446:
369:
308:
287:U.S. Attorney's
220:Blum v. Stenson
160:Blum v. Stenson
103:
75:
64:
58:
55:
44:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
916:
914:
906:
905:
895:
894:
891:
890:
888:Attorney's fee
883:
880:
878:
877:
868:
846:
831:
818:
793:
769:
752:
732:
714:
700:
682:
665:
644:
630:
628:
625:
607:
606:Another option
604:
547:
544:
519:
516:
457:
454:
445:
442:
368:
365:
307:
300:
194:overruled the
131:case compiled
102:
99:
77:
76:
59:September 2024
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
915:
904:
901:
900:
898:
889:
886:
885:
881:
872:
869:
866:
864:
857:
855:
853:
851:
847:
844:
842:
835:
832:
828:
822:
819:
807:
803:
797:
794:
786:
784:
776:
774:
770:
762:
756:
753:
749:
745:
741:
736:
733:
730:
726:
721:
719:
715:
710:
709:"USAO Matrix"
704:
701:
696:
692:
686:
683:
675:
669:
666:
658:
656:
648:
645:
641:
635:
632:
626:
624:
622:
618:
613:
605:
603:
601:
597:
592:
590:
586:
581:
577:
572:
570:
566:
561:
557:
553:
543:
539:
535:
533:
529:
525:
517:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
496:
495:
491:
487:
482:
480:
476:
471:
467:
464:Matrix for a
463:
455:
453:
451:
443:
441:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
420:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
378:
374:
366:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
339:
334:
329:
324:
321:
317:
313:
305:
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
273:
269:
263:
261:
257:
256:Trout v. Ball
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:The original
236:
234:
229:
228:attorney fees
225:
221:
217:
210:
208:
204:
199:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
120:
115:
114:
108:
100:
98:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:Laffey Matrix
73:
70:
62:
52:
48:
42:
41:
37:
32:This article
30:
21:
20:
871:
862:
840:
834:
826:
821:
809:. Retrieved
805:
796:
782:
755:
747:
743:
739:
735:
724:
703:
694:
685:
668:
654:
647:
639:
634:
620:
611:
609:
599:
595:
593:
588:
584:
579:
575:
573:
568:
564:
559:
555:
549:
540:
536:
531:
527:
523:
521:
511:
507:
503:
499:
497:
493:
489:
485:
483:
478:
474:
469:
461:
459:
449:
447:
437:
433:
429:
425:
423:
418:
414:conservative
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
376:
372:
370:
356:
352:
348:
344:
342:
337:
332:
327:
325:
319:
315:
309:
303:
294:
290:
282:
278:
276:
271:
267:
264:
259:
255:
252:
248:
247:decision in
244:
240:
238:
223:
219:
215:
213:
201:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:D.C. Circuit
167:
163:
159:
157:
152:
141:market rates
139:showing the
128:
117:
110:
106:
104:
82:
80:
65:
56:
45:Please help
33:
903:Legal costs
34:needs more
488:Matrix in
477:Matrix in
253:See, e.g.,
149:litigation
111:Laffey v.
95:attorneys'
785:Decision"
522:The USAO
373:Covington
371:Based on
314:used the
207:barrister
158:Based on
897:Category
882:See also
811:29 March
748:reversed
571:Matrix.
508:See also
432:Matrix.
233:economic
203:Congress
174:for the
155:Matrix.
133:evidence
121:v. Hodel
101:Overview
38:to help
783:Salazar
576:Salazar
289:Office
245:en banc
192:en banc
143:in the
125:en banc
827:Laffey
655:Laffey
612:Laffey
600:Laffey
589:Laffey
585:Laffey
580:Laffey
569:Laffey
565:Laffey
560:Laffey
556:Laffey
528:Laffey
524:Laffey
500:Laffey
486:Laffey
475:Laffey
462:Laffey
430:Laffey
426:Laffey
419:Laffey
410:Laffey
402:Laffey
398:Laffey
394:Laffey
386:Laffey
382:Laffey
377:Laffey
357:Laffey
353:Laffey
349:Laffey
345:Laffey
333:Laffey
328:Laffey
320:Laffey
316:Laffey
306:Matrix
304:Laffey
295:Laffey
291:Laffey
283:Laffey
279:Laffey
268:Laffey
241:Laffey
235:goals.
224:Laffey
196:Laffey
180:Laffey
164:Laffey
153:Laffey
129:Laffey
107:Laffey
788:(PDF)
764:(PDF)
677:(PDF)
660:(PDF)
657:case"
137:firms
135:from
813:2024
105:The
93:for
81:The
725:See
899::
849:^
804:.
772:^
717:^
693:.
532:DL
363:.
815:.
790:.
781:"
766:.
711:.
679:.
662:.
615:(
72:)
66:(
61:)
57:(
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.