Arthur Andersen factors in Texas

2026Id. at 194 (citing Cook, 241 S.W.3d at 103); see Dimension Homes, Inc. v. Young, No. 01-19-00247-CV, 2020 WL 4457960, at *5 (Tex. App.— 3 The non-exclusive Arthur Andersen factors are: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (2) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the attorney; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitation

2026Id. at 194 (citing Cook, 241 S.W.3d at 103 ); see Dimension Homes, Inc. v. Young, No. 01-19-00247-CV, 2020 WL 4457960 , at *5 (Tex. App.— 3 The non-exclusive Arthur Andersen factors are: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (2) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the attorney; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitati

2025The court in Rohrmoos explained that “the lodestar method developed as a ‘short hand version’ of the Arthur Andersen factors and was never intended to be a separate test or 9 method.” 578 S.W.3d at 496 .

2025The court in Rohrmoos explained that “the lodestar method developed as a ‘short hand version’ of the Arthur Andersen factors and was never intended to be a separate test or 9 method.” 578 S.W.3d at 496 .

2020The base lodestar calculation usually includes at least the following Arthur Andersen factors: “‘the time and labor required,’ ‘the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,’ ‘the skill required to perform the legal service properly,’ ‘the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services,’ ‘the amount involved,’ ‘the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services,’ ‘whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained,’ ‘the uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered,’ and ‘results –26– obtained.’

2020The base lodestar calculation usually includes at least the following Arthur Andersen factors: “‘the time and labor required,’ ‘the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,’ ‘the skill required to perform the legal service properly,’ ‘the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services,’ ‘the amount involved,’ ‘the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services,’ ‘whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained,’ ‘the uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered,’ and ‘results –26– obtained.’

2011See Barker, 213 S.W.3d at 314-15 ; Young, 223 S.W.3d at 314 -15 (citing Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2011See Barker, 213 S.W.3d at 314-15 ; Young, 223 S.W.3d at 314 -15 (citing Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2025Co., 532 S.W.3d 794, 809 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding); Wilstein, 471 S.W.3d at 490 ; see also Smith, 296 S.W.3d at 548 (“We have held that the Arthur Andersen factors apply to fee awards made by trial courts, not just juries.”).

2025Co., 532 S.W.3d 794, 809 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding); Wilstein, 471 S.W.3d at 490 ; see also Smith, 296 S.W.3d at 548 (“We have held that the Arthur Andersen factors apply to fee awards made by trial courts, not just juries.”).

2021See Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998) (“To determine whether attorney[’s] fees are reasonable, the trial court must consider the Arthur Andersen factors.”).

2021Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997) (alteration in original); see also Bocquet, 972 S.W.2d at 21 (noting Arthur Andersen factors “guide the determination of whether attorney fees are reasonable and necessary”); Wayland v. City of Arlington, 711 S.W.2d 232, 233 (Tex. 1986) (“One of the factors in determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees [is] the amount of damages awarded.”); Calhoun/Holiday Place, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-14-00872-CV, 2016 WL 7671372 , at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“A trial court need not receive evidence

2017The court held that the jury’s fee award was excessive under the Arthur Andersen factors because the evidence presented in the case did not “provide sufficient justification for shifting the entire amount of the contingent fee to Wythe.” Id. at 108 .

2017The court held that the jury’s fee award was excessive under the Arthur Andersen factors because the evidence presented in the case did not “provide sufficient justification for shifting the entire amount of the contingent fee to Wythe.” Id. at 108 .

2017See Brockie v. Webb, 244 S.W.3d 905, 909 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied).

2014See Brockie v. Webb, 244 S.W.3d 905, 909-10 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied).

2011See Barker, 213 S.W.3d at 314-15 ; Young, 223 S.W.3d at 314 -15 (citing Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2011See Barker, 213 S.W.3d at 314-15 ; Young, 223 S.W.3d at 314 -15 (citing Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2018“A reasonable [attorney’s] fee is one that is not excessive or extreme, but rather moderate or fair.” Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tex. 2010). 8 The record shows that the parties applied the lodestar method and the Arthur Andersen factors to the attorney’s fee evaluation.

2018“A reasonable [attorney’s] fee is one that is not excessive or extreme, but rather moderate or fair.” Garcia v. Gomez, 319 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tex. 2010). 8 The record shows that the parties applied the lodestar method and the Arthur Andersen factors to the attorney’s fee evaluation.

2018See Ragsdale , 801 S.W.2d at 881 ; Tex. City Patrol , 2016 WL 3748780 , at *5.

2018See Ragsdale , 801 S.W.2d at 881 ; Tex. City Patrol , 2016 WL 3748780 , at *5.

2015PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 38.003; see also Haden, 332 S.W.3d at 514 (holding attorney's affidavit sufficient to warrant summary judgment when it (1) contained recitals establishing attorney's competency to swear to facts stated and other requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(f), (2) described work encompassed by the fees sought, and (3) specified factors that formed basis of his statement that amount claimed was reasonable and necessary, tracking seven of eight Arthur Andersen factors).

2015PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 38.003; see also Haden, 332 S.W.3d at 514 (holding attorney's affidavit sufficient to warrant summary judgment when it (1) contained recitals establishing attorney's competency to swear to facts stated and other requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(f), (2) described work encompassed by the fees sought, and (3) specified factors that formed basis of his statement that amount claimed was reasonable and necessary, tracking seven of eight Arthur Andersen factors).

2014Gallagher & Co. v. Dieterich, 270 S.W.3d 695, 706 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (noting that there is no requirement that an attorney prove up the reasonableness of her fees with each of the Arthur Andersen factors).

2014Gallagher & Co. v. Dieterich, 270 S.W.3d 695, 706 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (noting that there is no requirement that an attorney prove up the reasonableness of her fees with each of the Arthur Andersen factors).

2012Power Co-op., Inc. v. Weber, 2 McDonald directs us to Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, a March 2012 Texas Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an award of guardian ad litem attorney's fees where the evidence showed that the ad litem did not perform all tasks listed on his invoice, the invoice did not set out the amount of time each 8 238 S.W.3d 582, 586-87 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding that there was sufficient evidence of the Arthur Andersen factors to support shifting contingency fee where there was testimony about the number of months the attorney had spent on the case, the l

2012Power Co-op., Inc. v. Weber, 2 McDonald directs us to Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, a March 2012 Texas Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an award of guardian ad litem attorney's fees where the evidence showed that the ad litem did not perform all tasks listed on his invoice, the invoice did not set out the amount of time each 8 238 S.W.3d 582, 586-87 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding that there was sufficient evidence of the Arthur Andersen factors to support shifting contingency fee where there was testimony about the number of months the attorney had spent on the case, the l

2012In other words, "[t]he plaintiff cannot simply ask the jury to award a percentage of the recovery as a fee; without evidence of the [Arthur Andersen factors], the jury has no meaningful way to determine if the fees were in fact reasonable and necessary." Transcont'l Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 35 S.W.3d 658, 675 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (citing Arthur Andersen, 945 S.W.2d at 818-19 ).

2009Gas Pipeline v. Texaco , 35 S.W.3d 658, 675-76 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (holding award of attorneys' fees on contingency basis was reasonable based on Arthur Andersen factors); see also VingCard A.S. v. Merrimac Hospitality Sys., Inc. , 59 S.W.3d 847, 870 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (same).

2007See Sieber & Calicutt, Inc. v. La Gloria Oil & Gas Co., 66 S.W.3d 340, 351 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2001, pet. denied) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney’s fees in contract dispute when attorney testified amounts were reasonable but failed to testify concerning Arthur Andersen factors); Nguyen Ngoc Giao v. Smith & Lamm, P.C., 714 S.W.2d 144, 149 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (noting that an attorney’s general statement that the amount sought is reasonable and necessary will not support the issue of reasonableness); see also Replacement Rent-A-C

2007See Sieber & Calicutt, Inc. v. La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. , 66 S.W.3d 340, 351 (Tex. App. C Tyler 2001, pet. denied) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney = s fees in contract dispute when attorney testified amounts were reasonable but failed to testify concerning Arthur Andersen factors); Nguyen Ngoc Giao v. Smith & Lamm, P.C. , 714 S.W.2d 144, 149 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (noting that an attorney = s general statement that the amount sought is reasonable and necessary will not support the issue of reasonableness); see also Replacem

2007See Sieber & Calicutt, Inc. v. La Gloria Oil & Gas Co., 66 S.W.3d 340, 351 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2001, pet. denied) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney’s fees in contract dispute when attorney testified amounts were reasonable but failed to testify concerning Arthur Andersen factors); Nguyen Ngoc Giao v. Smith & Lamm, P.C., 714 S.W.2d 144, 149 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (noting that an attorney’s general statement that the amount sought is reasonable and necessary will not support the issue of reasonableness); see also Replacement Rent-A-C

2007See Sieber & Calicutt, Inc. v. La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. , 66 S.W.3d 340, 351 (Tex. App. C Tyler 2001, pet. denied) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award attorney = s fees in contract dispute when attorney testified amounts were reasonable but failed to testify concerning Arthur Andersen factors); Nguyen Ngoc Giao v. Smith & Lamm, P.C. , 714 S.W.2d 144, 149 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (noting that an attorney = s general statement that the amount sought is reasonable and necessary will not support the issue of reasonableness); see also Replacem

2006Cain , 709 S.W.2d at 176 (summarizing factual sufficiency standard of review).

2006Cain , 709 S.W.2d at 176 (summarizing factual sufficiency standard of review).

2025Co., 532 S.W.3d 794, 809 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding); Wilstein, 471 S.W.3d at 490 ; see also Smith, 296 S.W.3d at 548 (“We have held that the Arthur Andersen factors apply to fee awards made by trial courts, not just juries.”).

2025Co., 532 S.W.3d 794, 809 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding); Wilstein, 471 S.W.3d at 490 ; see also Smith, 296 S.W.3d at 548 (“We have held that the Arthur Andersen factors apply to fee awards made by trial courts, not just juries.”).

2026Id. at 194 (citing Cook, 241 S.W.3d at 103); see Dimension Homes, Inc. v. Young, No. 01-19-00247-CV, 2020 WL 4457960, at *5 (Tex. App.— 3 The non-exclusive Arthur Andersen factors are: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (2) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the attorney; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitation

2026Id. at 194 (citing Cook, 241 S.W.3d at 103 ); see Dimension Homes, Inc. v. Young, No. 01-19-00247-CV, 2020 WL 4457960 , at *5 (Tex. App.— 3 The non-exclusive Arthur Andersen factors are: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (2) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the attorney; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitati

2024Hill, 544 S.W.3d at 743 ; see Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2019See Stewart Title , 822 S.W.2d at 10 ("Although courts should consider several factors when awarding attorney's fees, a short hand version of these considerations is that the trial court may award those fees that are 'reasonable and necessary' for the prosecution of the suit."); see also Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP , 544 S.W.3d 724 , 744 (Tex. 2018) (remanding for a new trial to determine attorney's fees and referencing Arthur Andersen factors but citing Bloyed , 916 S.W.2d at 961 , for the proposition that on remand, "any fee awarded ... should be tested against the lodestar approach to pre

2019See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939 (1983); El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. 2012). 3 forth over whether Dr. Brazil should recover “reasonable” fees—the statutory language—as opposed to fees that were “reasonable and necessary.” 5 At the trial’s conclusion, the trial court ruled from the bench that Dr. Brazil should recover $44,335.6 The trial court then entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that referred in passing to the Arthur Andersen factors used to determine the reasonableness and necessity of attorney’s fees.

2019See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939 (1983); El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. 2012). 3 forth over whether Dr. Brazil should recover “reasonable” fees—the statutory language—as opposed to fees that were “reasonable and necessary.” 5 At the trial’s conclusion, the trial court ruled from the bench that Dr. Brazil should recover $44,335.6 The trial court then entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that referred in passing to the Arthur Andersen factors used to determine the reasonableness and necessity of attorney’s fees.

2019See Stewart Title , 822 S.W.2d at 10 ("Although courts should consider several factors when awarding attorney's fees, a short hand version of these considerations is that the trial court may award those fees that are 'reasonable and necessary' for the prosecution of the suit."); see also Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP , 544 S.W.3d 724 , 744 (Tex. 2018) (remanding for a new trial to determine attorney's fees and referencing Arthur Andersen factors but citing Bloyed , 916 S.W.2d at 961 , for the proposition that on remand, "any fee awarded ... should be tested against the lodestar approach to pre

2019See Stewart Title , 822 S.W.2d at 10 ("Although courts should consider several factors when awarding attorney's fees, a short hand version of these considerations is that the trial court may award those fees that are 'reasonable and necessary' for the prosecution of the suit."); see also Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP , 544 S.W.3d 724 , 744 (Tex. 2018) (remanding for a new trial to determine attorney's fees and referencing Arthur Andersen factors but citing Bloyed , 916 S.W.2d at 961 , for the proposition that on remand, "any fee awarded ... should be tested against the lodestar approach to pre

2019See Stewart Title , 822 S.W.2d at 10 ("Although courts should consider several factors when awarding attorney's fees, a short hand version of these considerations is that the trial court may award those fees that are 'reasonable and necessary' for the prosecution of the suit."); see also Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP , 544 S.W.3d 724 , 744 (Tex. 2018) (remanding for a new trial to determine attorney's fees and referencing Arthur Andersen factors but citing Bloyed , 916 S.W.2d at 961 , for the proposition that on remand, "any fee awarded ... should be tested against the lodestar approach to pre

2019See Stewart Title , 822 S.W.2d at 10 ("Although courts should consider several factors when awarding attorney's fees, a short hand version of these considerations is that the trial court may award those fees that are 'reasonable and necessary' for the prosecution of the suit."); see also Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP , 544 S.W.3d 724 , 744 (Tex. 2018) (remanding for a new trial to determine attorney's fees and referencing Arthur Andersen factors but citing Bloyed , 916 S.W.2d at 961 , for the proposition that on remand, "any fee awarded ... should be tested against the lodestar approach to pre

2015Id. at~~ 13-31.

2015Id. at~~ 13-31.

2025See id.; see also City of Laredo v. Montano, 414 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (“In El Apple, we said that a lodestar calculation 9 The lodestar method is a shorthand version of the Arthur Andersen factors that a fact finder should consider when determining the reasonableness of a fee.

2025See id.; see also City of Laredo v. Montano, 414 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (“In El Apple, we said that a lodestar calculation 9 The lodestar method is a shorthand version of the Arthur Andersen factors that a fact finder should consider when determining the reasonableness of a fee.