Wood factors in Michigan

2020The court may consider making adjustments up or down to this base number in light of the other factors listed in Wood [v Detroit Auto Inter- Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982)] and MRPC 1.5(a). [Smith, 481 Mich at 537.] The Wood factors include: (1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. [Wood, 413 Mich at 588 (citation omitted).] Additi

2020The court may consider making adjustments up or down to this base number in light of the other factors listed in Wood [v Detroit Auto Inter- Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573 ; 321 NW2d 653 (1982)] and MRPC 1.5(a). [Smith, 481 Mich at 537.] The Wood factors include: (1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. [Wood, 413 Mich at 588 (citation omitted).] Additi

2018But, under the controlling test from Jamnik, the trial court must consider “the time and expense of counsel which can reasonably be justified.” In re Attorney Fees of Jamnik, 176 Mich App at 831 .

2018But, under the controlling test from Jamnik, the trial court must consider “the time and expense of counsel which can reasonably be justified.” In re Attorney Fees of Jamnik, 176 Mich App at 831 .

2017Thus, until a statute or a court rule specifies otherwise, the attorney fees must take into account the work not only of attorneys, but also of secretaries, messengers, paralegals, and others whose labor contributes to the work product for which an attorney bills a client, and it must also take account of other expenses and profit.” [Allard v State Farm Ins Co, 271 Mich App 394, 404-405 ; 722 NW2d 268 (2006), quoting Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 181-182 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997) (citation omitted).] Although plaintiff takes issue with certain aspects of defendant’s account

2017Thus, until a statute or a court rule specifies otherwise, the attorney fees must take into account the work not only of attorneys, but also of secretaries, messengers, paralegals, and others whose labor contributes to the work product for which an attorney bills a client, and it must also take account of other expenses and profit.” [Allard v State Farm Ins Co, 271 Mich App 394, 404-405 ; 722 NW2d 268 (2006), quoting Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 181-182 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997) (citation omitted).] Although plaintiff takes issue with certain aspects of defendant’s account

2017Thus, until a statute or a court rule specifies otherwise, the attorney fees must take into account the work not only of attorneys, but also of secretaries, messengers, paralegals, and others whose labor contributes to the work product for which an attorney bills a client, and it must also take account of other expenses and profit.” [Allard v State Farm Ins Co, 271 Mich App 394, 404-405 ; 722 NW2d 268 (2006), quoting Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 181-182 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997) (citation omitted).] Although plaintiff takes issue with certain aspects of defendant’s account

2017Thus, until a statute or a court rule specifies otherwise, the attorney fees must take into account the work not only of attorneys, but also of secretaries, messengers, paralegals, and others whose labor contributes to the work product for which an attorney bills a client, and it must also take account of other expenses and profit.” [Allard v State Farm Ins Co, 271 Mich App 394, 404-405 ; 722 NW2d 268 (2006), quoting Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 181-182 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997) (citation omitted).] Although plaintiff takes issue with certain aspects of defendant’s account

2017Thus, until a statute or a court rule specifies otherwise, the attorney fees must take into account the work not only of attorneys, but also of secretaries, messengers, paralegals, and others whose labor contributes to the work product for which an attorney bills a client, and it must also take account of other expenses and profit.” [Allard v State Farm Ins Co, 271 Mich App 394, 404-405 ; 722 NW2d 268 (2006), quoting Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 181-182 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997) (citation omitted).] Although plaintiff takes issue with certain aspects of defendant’s account

2017Thus, until a statute or a court rule specifies otherwise, the attorney fees must take into account the work not only of attorneys, but also of secretaries, messengers, paralegals, and others whose labor contributes to the work product for which an attorney bills a client, and it must also take account of other expenses and profit.” [Allard v State Farm Ins Co, 271 Mich App 394, 404-405 ; 722 NW2d 268 (2006), quoting Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 181-182 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997) (citation omitted).] Although plaintiff takes issue with certain aspects of defendant’s account

2020Thus, in reviewing the reasonableness issue, it is important to keep in mind that it is the client who will ultimately pay the difference, if any, between a contingent fee agreement (the reasonableness of which is not contested in this case) and the attorney fees allowed by a trial court under [MCL 500.3148(1).] [Hartman, 178 Mich App at 430-431 .] This Court instructed the trial court on remand to consider the contingency-fee agreement because it was relevant to one of the Wood factors, that being the relationship between the plaintiff and his counsel, and further reminded the trial court tha

2020Thus, in reviewing the reasonableness issue, it is important to keep in mind that it is the client who will ultimately pay the difference, if any, between a contingent fee agreement (the reasonableness of which is not contested in this case) and the attorney fees allowed by a trial court under [MCL 500.3148(1).] [Hartman, 178 Mich App at 430-431 .] This Court instructed the trial court on remand to consider the contingency-fee agreement because it was relevant to one of the Wood factors, that being the relationship between the plaintiff and his counsel, and further reminded the trial court tha

2019The wood on the bar was cracked, and there was a blood stain on the 1 Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, we do not seek to contravene our Supreme Court’s opinions in People v Hanna, 19 Mich 316 (1869), People v Prague, 72 Mich 178, 180 ; 40 NW2d 243 (1988), and Cornell, 466 Mich 335 .

2019The wood on the bar was cracked, and there was a blood stain on the 1 Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, we do not seek to contravene our Supreme Court’s opinions in People v Hanna, 19 Mich 316 (1869), People v Prague, 72 Mich 178, 180 ; 40 NW2d 243 (1988), and Cornell, 466 Mich 335 .

2019We take no issue with our Supreme Court’s holdings that a defendant is entitled to request that the jury be instructed on all necessarily lesser-included offenses so long as “all the elements of the lesser offense are included within the greater offense[,]” Nyx, 479 Mich at 120 , citing Mendoza, 468 Mich at 553 , and “a rational view of the evidence would support it.” Cornell, 466 Mich at 357 .

2019We take no issue with our Supreme Court’s holdings that a defendant is entitled to request that the jury be instructed on all necessarily lesser-included offenses so long as “all the elements of the lesser offense are included within the greater offense[,]” Nyx, 479 Mich at 120 , citing Mendoza, 468 Mich at 553 , and “a rational view of the evidence would support it.” Cornell, 466 Mich at 357 .

2019The wood on the bar was cracked, and there was a blood stain on the 1 Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, we do not seek to contravene our Supreme Court’s opinions in People v Hanna, 19 Mich 316 (1869), People v Prague, 72 Mich 178, 180 ; 40 NW2d 243 (1988), and Cornell, 466 Mich 335 .

2019We take no issue with our Supreme Court’s holdings that a defendant is entitled to request that the jury be instructed on all necessarily lesser-included offenses so long as “all the elements of the lesser offense are included within the greater offense[,]” Nyx, 479 Mich at 120 , citing Mendoza, 468 Mich at 553 , and “a rational view of the evidence would support it.” Cornell, 466 Mich at 357 .

2014The 5 The Wood factors include: (1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficult of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. [Wood, 413 Mich at 588 (citations omitted).] -7- market rate, in turn, “is the rate that lawyers of similar ability and experience in the community normally charge their paying clients for the type of work in question.” Van Elslander, 297 Mich App at 230 , quoting Smith, 481

2014The 5 The Wood factors include: (1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficult of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. [Wood, 413 Mich at 588 (citations omitted).] -7- market rate, in turn, “is the rate that lawyers of similar ability and experience in the community normally charge their paying clients for the type of work in question.” Van Elslander, 297 Mich App at 230 , quoting Smith, 481

2008Co.), 209 Mich. App. 336, 341-342 , 530 N.W.2d 183 (1995), which overlap the Wood factors and include: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 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 client or by the circumstances; (6) the

2008Co.), 209 Mich. App. 336, 341-342 , 530 N.W.2d 183 (1995), which overlap the Wood factors and include: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 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 client or by the circumstances; (6) the

2008For the most recent examples of this reality see Jones v. Olson, 480 Mich. 1169 , 747 N.W.2d 250 (2008), and Minter v. Grand Rapids, 480 Mich. 1181 , 747 N.W.2d 229 (2008).

2008For the most recent examples of this reality see Jones v. Olson, 480 Mich. 1169 , 747 N.W.2d 250 (2008), and Minter v. Grand Rapids, 480 Mich. 1181 , 747 N.W.2d 229 (2008).

2008For the most recent examples of this reality, see Jones v Olson, 480 Mich 1169 (2008), and Minter v Grand Rapids, 480 Mich 1181 (2008).

2008For the most recent examples of this reality, see Jones v Olson, 480 Mich 1169 (2008), and Minter v Grand Rapids, 480 Mich 1181 (2008).

2008See, e.g., Zdrojewski, 254 Mich. App. at 73 , 657 N.W.2d 721 ; Temple v. Kelel Distributing Co. Inc., 183 Mich.App. 326, 333 , 454 N.W.2d 610 (1990).

2008See, e.g., Zdrojewski, 254 Mich. App. at 73 , 657 N.W.2d 721 ; Temple v. Kelel Distributing Co. Inc., 183 Mich.App. 326, 333 , 454 N.W.2d 610 (1990).

1998Similarly, in Petterman, supra, this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding the reasonableness of the attorney fee as a result of the trial court having accepted an itemized bill for attor *17 ney fees on its face without actually considering the issue of reasonableness.

1998Similarly, in Petterman, supra, this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding the reasonableness of the attorney fee as a result of the trial court having accepted an itemized bill for attor *17 ney fees on its face without actually considering the issue of reasonableness.

1988Fifteen years after Pierson v Ray, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the Wood test for qualified immunity had become disruptive of effective government due to "the costs of trial or the burdens of broad-reaching discovery.” Harlow, supra, pp 817-818 .

1988Fifteen years after Pierson v Ray, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the Wood test for qualified immunity had become disruptive of effective government due to "the costs of trial or the burdens of broad-reaching discovery.” Harlow, supra, pp 817-818 .

1975Toto-rean v Samuels, 52 Mich App 14; 216 NW2d 429 (1974), Taylor v Klahm, 40 Mich App 255, 265 ; 198 NW2d 715 (1972), Williams v Griffin, supra. Defendants do not question the Wood rule, but argue under authority of Williams v Griffin, supra, that the ultimate burden of proof remains with plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to carry the bur *262 den.

1975Toto-rean v Samuels, 52 Mich App 14; 216 NW2d 429 (1974), Taylor v Klahm, 40 Mich App 255, 265 ; 198 NW2d 715 (1972), Williams v Griffin, supra. Defendants do not question the Wood rule, but argue under authority of Williams v Griffin, supra, that the ultimate burden of proof remains with plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to carry the bur *262 den.

1975Toto-rean v Samuels, 52 Mich App 14; 216 NW2d 429 (1974), Taylor v Klahm, 40 Mich App 255, 265 ; 198 NW2d 715 (1972), Williams v Griffin, supra. Defendants do not question the Wood rule, but argue under authority of Williams v Griffin, supra, that the ultimate burden of proof remains with plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to carry the bur *262 den.

1975Toto-rean v Samuels, 52 Mich App 14; 216 NW2d 429 (1974), Taylor v Klahm, 40 Mich App 255, 265 ; 198 NW2d 715 (1972), Williams v Griffin, supra. Defendants do not question the Wood rule, but argue under authority of Williams v Griffin, supra, that the ultimate burden of proof remains with plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to carry the bur *262 den.

1975Toto-rean v Samuels, 52 Mich App 14; 216 NW2d 429 (1974), Taylor v Klahm, 40 Mich App 255, 265 ; 198 NW2d 715 (1972), Williams v Griffin, supra. Defendants do not question the Wood rule, but argue under authority of Williams v Griffin, supra, that the ultimate burden of proof remains with plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to carry the bur *262 den.

1975Toto-rean v Samuels, 52 Mich App 14; 216 NW2d 429 (1974), Taylor v Klahm, 40 Mich App 255, 265 ; 198 NW2d 715 (1972), Williams v Griffin, supra. Defendants do not question the Wood rule, but argue under authority of Williams v Griffin, supra, that the ultimate burden of proof remains with plaintiff, and plaintiff has failed to carry the bur *262 den.