Andersen factors in Texas

2015Considering the relevant factors, we conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to support the award of attorney’s fees and costs. 2 The Andersen factors include: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood . . . that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the

2015Considering the relevant factors, we conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to support the award of attorney’s fees and costs. 2 The Andersen factors include: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood . . . that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the

2009Asfahl Agency v. Tensor, Inc ., 135 S.W.3d 768, 801-02 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (quoting Andersen factors).

2007Asfahl Agency v. Tensor, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 768, 801-02 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (quoting Andersen factors).

2005See Columbia Rio Grande Reg'l Hosp. v. Stover , 17 S.W.3d 387, 397 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.).

2005See Columbia Rio Grande Reg'l Hosp. v. Stover , 17 S.W.3d 387, 397 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.).

2011Evidence of each of the Andersen factors is not required to support an award of attorney’s fees, and an attorney’s fees expert “may testify that he reviewed an attorney’s fíle and offer an opinion that the fees charged for that work were reasonable and necessary.” Dieterich, 270 S.W.3d at 706 .

2011Evidence of each of the Andersen factors is not required to support an award of attorney’s fees, and an attorney’s fees expert “may testify that he reviewed an attorney’s fíle and offer an opinion that the fees charged for that work were reasonable and necessary.” Dieterich, 270 S.W.3d at 706 .

2011In Garcia v. Gomez, the supreme court reversed the court of appeals‘s opinion concluding that an attorney‘s testimony providing evidence on only the third and seventh Andersen factors was conclusory and therefore no-evidence of reasonableness and necessity. 319 S.W.3d 638 , 640–41 (Tex. 2010).

2011In Garcia v. Gomez, the supreme court reversed the court of appeals’s opinion concluding that an attorney’s testimony providing evidence on only the third and seventh Andersen factors was conclusory and therefore no evidence of reasonableness and necessity. 319 S.W.3d 638, 640-41 (Tex.2010).

2010A trial court abuses its discretion in “ordering payment of a fee in excess of the product of the hours spent and the hourly fee supported by the testimony using the Andersen factors.” Land Rover U.K., Ltd., 210 S.W.3d at 608 , referencing Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2010A trial court abuses its discretion in “ordering payment of a fee in excess of the product of the hours spent and the hourly fee supported by the testimony using the Andersen factors.” Land Rover U.K., Ltd, 210 S.W.3d at 608 , referencing Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2021See Universal MRI & Diagnostics, 497 S.W.3d at 664–65 (applying El Apple to an attorney’s hourly rate fee, despite the appearance of Andersen factors in the attorney’s affidavit). - 10 - 04-19-00722-CV when they were performed, and how much time the work required.” El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 764 (Tex. 2012).

2015Additionally, Rohrmoos relies on El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) and its progeny to argue that attorney’s fees awards must be supported by some evidence of the 12 When Howard’s testimony concluded, Rohrmoos moved to strike the testimony from the record because Howard “did not testify about any Andersen factors which are necessary to be testified to, to prove reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees” and “therefore his testimony is all just opinion and does not comply with the ethics rules.” –16– actual work performed and suggests this evidence is lacking here because How

2011See Franco v. Lopez , 307 S.W.3d 551, 555 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

2011See Franco v. Lopez , 307 S.W.3d 551, 555 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

2005Moody Nat'l Bank v. Riebschlager , 946 S.W.2d 521, 525 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied).

2005Moody Nat'l Bank v. Riebschlager , 946 S.W.2d 521, 525 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied).

2021See Universal MRI & Diagnostics, 497 S.W.3d at 664–65 (applying El Apple to an attorney’s hourly rate fee, despite the appearance of Andersen factors in the attorney’s affidavit). - 10 - 04-19-00722-CV when they were performed, and how much time the work required.” El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 764 (Tex. 2012).

2021See Universal MRI & Diagnostics, 497 S.W.3d at 664–65 (applying El Apple to an attorney’s hourly rate fee, despite the appearance of Andersen factors in the attorney’s affidavit). - 10 - 04-19-00722-CV when they were performed, and how much time the work required.” El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 764 (Tex. 2012).

2018See, e.g., Petco Animal Supplies v. Schuster, 144 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.–Austin 2004, no pet); Acad.

2010See Bank of Tex. v. VR Elec., Inc., 276 S.W.3d 671, 685 (Tex.App.-Hous. [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (evidence of attorney’s fees sufficient despite failure of evidence to address three of the eight Andersen factors).

2007Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Tex.1990), cited many of these later-established factors among those that trial court "must take into account” in awarding attorneys’ fees. 7 .

2006For example, in Garcia , we held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering payment of a fee in excess of the product of the hours spent and the hourly fee supported by the testimony using the Andersen factors. 988 S.W.2d at 222-23 (rejecting the argument that the guardian ad litem’s fee must reflect a proportion of the settlement amount absent an agreement to that effect).

2006Similarly, in Alford v. Whaley, the court of appeals concluded that the hourly fee to which the guardian ad litem testified “encompassed all of the factors to be considered in determining whether a fee is reasonable” and held that the guardian ad litem was not entitled to an additional fee over the product of number of hours worked and the hourly rate. 794 S.W.2d 920, 925-26 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ).