 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
May v. City of Detroit6/12/2003
able for Attorney McClure and Attorney Langberg to be present at the trial when Attorney Fieger tried the case in its entirety. However, Attorney McClure and Attorney Langberg represented plaintiff prior to Attorney Fieger's involvement, and therefore, conducted a great deal of the discovery. Thus, their presence at trial and assistance in depositions was necessary to Attorney Fieger who joined the case just prior to case evaluation. Based on the vast number of witnesses, the complexity of the case, and the fact that Attorney Fieger did not begin his representation until just before case evaluation the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting attorney fees to all three attorneys. Elia, supra, 242 Mich App 376-377; See Attard, supra, 237 Mich App 329-330.
Defendant argues that Attorney Fieger's hourly rate of $600 was unreasonable. In determining a reasonable hourly or daily rate, the trial court can take into consideration some of the following: (1) the professional standing and experience of the lawyer; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. Zdrojewski, supra, 254 Mich App 72; Temple v Kelel Distributing Co, 183 Mich App 326, 333; 454 NW2d 610 (1990); Jernigan v General Motors Corp, 180 Mich App 575, 587; 447 NW2d 822 (1989). Defendant does not question Attorney Fieger's professional standing and experience as a lawyer. This case was clearly more than a "garden-variety auto negligence case" as defendant indicates in its brief. Further, the result received achieved is also a factor and a verdict of $7,000,000 was awarded when defendant had, apparently, only offered $600,000. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the $600 per hour fee requested by Attorney Fieger.
Defendant, in its brief on appeal, argued that the trial court awarded unreasonable expert witness fees. Plaintiff's brief on appeal pointed out that the trial court had not awarded expert witness fees, and thus, plaintiff requested that defendant be sanctioned under MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b). Defendant's reply brief on appeal notes that it inadvertently included the discussion on expert witness fees. This Court may, upon motion of a party or its own initiative, impose sanctions on a party who pursued a vexatious appeal or a vexatious proceeding in an appeal. MCR 7.216(C)(1), DeWald v Isola (After Remand), 188 Mich App 697, 700; 470 NW2d 505 (1991). An appeal is vexatious when it is taken for purposes of hindrance or delay or without any reasonable basis for belief that there is a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal. MCR 7.216(C)(1)(a), Richardson v DAIIE, 180 Mich App 704, 709; 447 NW2d 791 (1989). A proceeding is vexatious when a pleading, motion, argument, brief, document or record filed or any testimony presented is grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety, violates court rules, or grossly disregards the requirements of a fair presentation of the issues to the court. MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b). Based on the record and the complexity of this case there is no reason not to believe that defendant inadvertently included the argument regarding expert witness fees. MCR 7.216(C) uses the term "may" in that it is within this Court's discretion. Though the basis may exist in this case for sanctions, under the circumstances we will not impose sanctions.
Affirmed.
Kathleen Jansen
Kirsten Frank Kelly
Karen Fort Hood
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|