Cole-Hoover v. Reddy
689 F. App'x 60
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Gwendolyn Cole-Hoover filed an employment discrimination action in 2002 that proceeded for over a decade with multiple successive attorneys.
- Attorneys Fitzgerald and Richmond represented Cole-Hoover from 2005 until they withdrew; they sought fees for work performed after withdrawal per their retainer agreement.
- Prathima Reddy replaced prior counsel shortly before trial; her retainer included a nonrefundable retainer provision.
- The case settled for $750,000 shortly before jury selection; subsequent disputes over attorney fees and allocation of mediation costs followed.
- The magistrate judge granted fee awards to Fitzgerald, Richmond, and Reddy, applying a 10% reduction for vagueness/excessive or insufficiently documented time entries; Reddy’s nonrefundable retainer was deemed unenforceable and recovery was awarded in quantum meruit.
- Cole-Hoover appealed the fee awards (and a separate order requiring payment of mediation fees); Reddy cross-appealed the 10% reduction to her quantum meruit award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees for Fitzgerald & Richmond | Cole-Hoover challenged vagueness, overbilling, and double-billing in time records | Counsel sought payment per retainer; hourly rates undisputed | Court affirmed awards but reduced by 10% for vague/excessive entries |
| Enforceability of Reddy’s nonrefundable retainer | Reddy’s retainer violates NY RPC and thus she should recover nothing | Reddy argued for payment for services actually rendered | Retainer unenforceable; Reddy may recover in quantum meruit for reasonable value of services |
| Appropriate reductions for time entries | Claimed greater reductions needed for vagueness and overbilling | Counsel defended entries; district court applied modest reductions | 10% reduction for each set of attorneys was within discretion and affirmed |
| Mediation fee allocation | Cole-Hoover briefly challenged being required to pay her share | Defendants relied on district court ADR Plan | Requirement to pay mediation fees affirmed (consistent with ADR Plan) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carco Grp., Inc. v. Maconachy, 718 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for fee awards: abuse of discretion)
- McDaniel v. Cty. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2010) (deference to district court on fee decisions due to familiarity with case)
- Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2009) (attorney misconduct can affect fee entitlement in certain contexts)
- In re Cooperman, 83 N.Y.2d 465 (N.Y. 1994) (unenforceable nonrefundable retainers may still permit quantum meruit recovery)