Township Council Meeting — Agenda

MRS L 000300-20 05/22/2020 Pg 14 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2020932426 s counsel is an experienced litigator. founded the and built it from scratch, serves on numerous legal committees, has received allocates and awards, has handled many OPRA matters that resulted in published judicial opinions and has published several OPRA-related articles. Id. ¶¶ 14, 19-27. The eighth factor addresses whether the fee charged is fixed or contingent. counsel seeks to recover $500.00 per hour spent working on this matter. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff counsel agreed to represent Plaintiff in this matter on a strict fee-shifting basis, such that the firm would -shifting provision, N.J.S.A. 47:1A- 6. Id. ¶ 12; Exh. B. Plaintiff has purportedly not paid any money to the firm regarding this OPRA case, nor is she required to do so under the terms of the retainer agreement. Ibid. The firm has also paid for all associated litigation expenses, such as filing and process server fees, and Plaintiff allegedly has no obligation to pay these fees either. Ibid. ualitative s requested $8,715.90 and litigation costs should be reduced. New Jerseyans, 185 N.J. at 155. rate of $500.00 per hour is acceptable and similar to the hourly rate charged by partners at similar firms in the region. However, the number of hours billed are in excess of those necessary for an attorney well experienced in OPRA law. This was a relatively simple OPRA case that did not involve particularly novel or challenging issues, as there were no hearings or substantive filings other than with regards to the Verified Complaint and the fee applications. For an attorney well-versed in OPRA matters, some of the more common portions of the filings submitted were likely created for other OPRA cases and, therefore, 14 Pa055