Webb, Secretary of the Navy v. Maldonado

Background

A dispute arose after a federal appeals court in the Ninth Circuit approved an attorney’s fee award under a federal employment law that used the prevailing market hourly rate even though that rate was much higher than the lawyer’s usual billing rate. Another appeals court, the D.C. Circuit in Laffey, had held that a lawyer’s customary billing rate should be used so long as it was not unusually high or low. A petition asked the Supreme Court to resolve that disagreement between the circuits.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, so it did not decide which method is correct. Justice White wrote a dissent saying the Court should have taken the case because the circuits are split. The dissent explains that some other courts define a reasonable fee as one sufficient to induce competent lawyers but not larger, and it noted that the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected the D.C. Circuit’s Laffey approach.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined review, the Ninth Circuit’s approach remains in effect in that circuit and the D.C. Circuit’s approach remains in the other, leaving lawyers and clients facing inconsistent fee outcomes. The dissent emphasized that more than 100 federal statutes use "reasonable" attorney fees as a benchmark, so the disagreement affects many types of cases. The question could arise again in other circuits or return to the Court for a future decision.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White would have granted review, citing the circuit conflict and the practical importance of a uniform rule for calculating reasonable fees.