October Term 2009 · Docket 08-970
Can courts add a quality bonus to standard legal fees?
The dispute centers on whether a district court may increase a standard fee award to reward exceptional legal performance.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Cohen argued that the district court found the standard fee insufficient for the quality of work.
Mr. Shah argued that a bonus is only justified if the standard fee is unreasonably low.
Justice Ginsburg noted that the lower court judge praised the lawyers' amazing performance.
Justice Scalia questioned whether the fee increase truly reflected the quality of representation.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-43
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of the lodestar method for calculating attorney fees. The core issue is whether a judge can add a bonus for high-quality work on top of standard market rates.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 5-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 14, 2009.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 39-41
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the fee award reduced to match standard market rates.
the opposing sides want the court to keep the higher fee that rewards superior performance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 5-27
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue that standard market rates already account for the quality of legal work.
the opposing sides argue that a bonus is necessary when the lodestar amount is unreasonably low.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 5-27
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked what constitutes similar work in this context.
Justice Sotomayor asked if the market rate applies to all attorneys or only specialists.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-43
Why it matters
This case defines how courts calculate attorney fees in civil rights litigation. It determines whether judges can reward exceptional legal skill with extra money. The outcome sets a national standard for fee awards in similar cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 5-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-43
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 19-3 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 19-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 5-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.