in Re Attorney Fees of John W Ujlaky
330464
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- John W. Ujlaky was court-appointed to represent Christopher Duncan in an appeal challenging scoring of offense variables after a guilty plea and denial of resentencing; the delayed application for leave to appeal was denied.
- Ujlaky submitted a MAACS voucher requesting $2,350 in fees and $472.41 in expenses and separately filed a written “motion for payment of fees” with an itemized billing statement the same day.
- He did not check the MAACS box for extraordinary fees and did not file a separate supporting brief; the motion did not identify legal authority with particularity as required by MCR 2.119.
- The circuit court increased the standard appellate fee by $330 and ordered payment of $990 in appellate fees plus $472.41 expenses, without holding a hearing or articulating detailed findings under the Wood/MRPC 1.5 factors.
- Ujlaky appealed the denial of his request for additional extraordinary appellate fees; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Ujlaky failed to meet his burden to prove the requested fees were reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Ujlaky’s Argument | People/Circuit Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ujlaky was entitled to extraordinary appellate attorney fees above the standard schedule | He worked more hours than typical and submitted an itemized billing statement showing additional time and expenses | The motion failed to meet procedural rules and did not prove reasonableness under applicable factors; mere extra time isn’t ipso facto entitlement | Court held Ujlaky failed to meet his burden to prove reasonableness; affirmed partial award ($990 + expenses) |
| Whether the motion complied with MCR 2.119 requirements (particularity and supporting brief) | The combined motion/billing sufficed to demonstrate entitlement | Motion did not state authority with particularity and lacked a separate brief as required, leaving court without adequate legal support | Court held the motion was procedurally deficient under MCR 2.119 and insufficient to carry burden |
| Whether the court’s limited award or lack of articulated Wood/MRPC 1.5 analysis denied Ujlaky a substantive right (including Fifth and Sixth Amendment implications) | Failure to make specific factual findings or fully compensate amounted to denial of property and ineffective-assistance protections | No contract-based wage right existed pre-determination; no taking occurred; record shows no ineffective assistance to the defendant from the fee award | Court rejected constitutional claims and found no Fifth Amendment taking or Sixth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Recorder’s Court Bar Ass’n v. Wayne Circuit Court, 443 Mich 110 (discusses entitlement to reasonable compensation for appointed counsel)
- Wood v. Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573 (sets six-factor reasonableness test for attorney fees)
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (endorses lodestar approach: local reasonable rate × hours, then adjust using Wood/MRPC factors)
- Adair v. Michigan, 301 Mich App 547 (party requesting fees bears burden to prove reasonableness)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)