![In Re Marriage of Cheryl C. Van Camp](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![In Re Marriage of Cheryl C. Van Camp](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
In Re Marriage of Cheryl C. Van Camp
1996.WA.40129 ; 918 P.2d 509; 82 Wash. App. 339
-
- € 0,99
-
- € 0,99
Publisher Description
SWEENEY, C.J. --One commonly used method for determining reasonable attorney fees is the lodestar formula. The lodestar formula is applied by first determining the number of professional hours spent on a case, then multiplying that number by the reasonable hourly fee, and adjusting the resulting sum up or down based on a series of factors. Bowles v. Department of Retirement Sys., 121 Wash. 2d 52, 72, 847 P.2d 440 (1993). In this dissolution action, the trial court rejected the husbands proposal to base attorney fees on the lodestar formula and instead considered those factors traditionally applied in determining attorney fees in a dissolution case--need, ability and equity. RCW 26.09.140; Richards v. Richards, 5 Wash. App. 609, 614, 489 P.2d 928 (1971). The question presented is whether we should require application of the lodestar formula to calculate attorney fees in a dissolution action. Concluding we should not, we affirm the decision of the trial court, remanding in part for recalculation of costs.