Magistrate Judge Leonard's recent decision in Intelligent Verification Sys., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 2:12CV525 (E.D. Va. Nov. 25, 2014), found here, offers some helpful pointers on attorney's fee applications in the EDVA. While Intelligent Verification involved an award of fees for a motion to compel, the guidance highlighted below applies to most claims for attorneys' fees:

  • Provide detailed information about the attorneys' experience, including a CV. The Intelligent Verification plaintiff submitted an expert declaration stating that the expert had reviewed the CV's of the plaintiff's attorneys, but copies of those CV's were not provided to the Court. Ironically, the Court pointed out, the expert provided more information about his own experience than about the experience of the plaintiff's attorneys.
  • Make sure to address the Robinson factors. Judge Leonard emphasized that the prevailing standard for an award of attorneys' fees in the Fourth Circuit are the twelve factors found in Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243-44 (4th Cir. 2009), which are sometimes referred to as the "Johnson factors."
  • The "Vienna Metro Matrix" can be helpful in establishing reasonable rates. The plaintiff in Intelligent Verification relied on the matrix established in Northern Virginia in Vienna Metro LLC v. Pulte Home Corp., 786 F.Supp.2d 1090 (E.D. Va. 2011), which set forth reasonable hourly rates of $350-$600 for a mid-level associate and $505-$820 for a partner with more than twenty years experience.
  • Cite fee awards in similar cases for comparison. Judge Leonard noted that the plaintiff only cited one other similar case for the reasonableness of its requested fees, forcing the Court to set a reasonable hourly rate based on its own experience.
  • The time expended must be consistent with the complexity of the issues and the work product produced. The Court cut in half the plaintiff's request for fees for 16 hours spent on an initial brief in support of its motion to compel that was less than seven pages long and made straightforward and uncontroversial arguments. Likewise, the Court criticized the request for forty hours to respond to an opposition brief that was limited to two pages. These two examples point up the need to specifically justify each item included in a fee request.
  • Travel time is recoverable. The Court allowed all of the time for plaintiff's counsel to travel from Northern Virginia to Norfolk for the hearing on the Motion to Compel.

The lesson to draw from Intelligent Verification is that detail and specificity matter. To be successful, a fee claimant must clearly establish the experience of the attorneys involved, the reasonableness of the attorneys' rate and justify all the hours requested.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.