lodestar analysis in Texas

2026“The Texas Supreme Court has explained that it intends ‘the lodestar analysis to apply to any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.’” In re H.T.S., No. 06-23-00029-CV, 2023 WL 7381409 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 8, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 498 ). “[T]he fact[-]finder’s starting point for calculating an attorney’s fee award is determining the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the fee claimant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence on both

2026“The Texas Supreme Court has explained that it intends ‘the lodestar analysis to apply to any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.’” In re H.T.S., No. 06-23-00029-CV, 2023 WL 7381409 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 8, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 498 ). “[T]he fact[-]finder’s starting point for calculating an attorney’s fee award is determining the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the fee claimant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence on both

2020Without at least some indication of the time spent on various parts of the case, a court has little basis upon which to conduct a meaningful review of the fee award. 370 S.W.3d at 763 ; see also City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (where the high court held that an attorney’s representation that he generated “thousands and thousands of pages,” spent “a lot of time getting ready for the lawsuit,” and conducted “a lot of legal research” was insufficient evidence under the lodestar analysis to establish reasonable attorney’s fees); Long v. Griffin, 442 S.W.3d 253, 255 (Tex.

2019Rohrmoos clarified “[i]t should have been clear from our opinions in El Apple, Montano, and Long that we intended the lodestar analysis to apply to any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.” Id. at 497-98. 37 Accordingly, Rohrmoos instructed that “the fact finder’s starting point for calculating an attorney’s fee award is determining the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the fee claimant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence on both counts.” Id. at 498 (citing El Apple, 370 S

2020Without at least some indication of the time spent on various parts of the case, a court has little basis upon which to conduct a meaningful review of the fee award. 370 S.W.3d at 763 ; see also City of Laredo v. Montano, 415 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (where the high court held that an attorney’s representation that he generated “thousands and thousands of pages,” spent “a lot of time getting ready for the lawsuit,” and conducted “a lot of legal research” was insufficient evidence under the lodestar analysis to establish reasonable attorney’s fees); Long v. Griffin, 442 S.W.3d 253, 255 (Tex.

2019The Supreme Court of Texas recently explained: It should have been clear from our opinions in El Apple [I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012)], [City of Laredo v.] Montano[, 414 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam)], and Long [v. Griffin, 442 S.W.3d 253, 255 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam),] that we intended the lodestar analysis to apply to any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.

2026Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997).

2020Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997). 15 Shouldice argues that the testimony regarding attorney’s fees was too general to support a lodestar analysis.

2011See Blanchard, 489 U.S. at 93 , 109 S.Ct. at 944 .

2011See Blanchard, 489 U.S. at 93 , 109 S.Ct. at 944 .

2022See Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 505 (reversing and remanding for redetermination of attorney’s fees where evidence was legally insufficient to establish amount of fees); Long v. Griffin, 442 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding where “no legally sufficient information support[ed] the amount of attorney’s fees the trial court awarded”); Montano, 414 S.W.3d at 736–37 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding where party’s attorney’s fee testimony lacked the level of detail required by El Apple); El Apple, 370 S.W.3d at 764 (“Because the affidavits and other evide

2019The Supreme Court of Texas recently explained: It should have been clear from our opinions in El Apple [I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012)], [City of Laredo v.] Montano[, 414 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam)], and Long [v. Griffin, 442 S.W.3d 253, 255 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam),] that we intended the lodestar analysis to apply to any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.

2024See Hunsucker, 238 S.W.3d at 432 (citing Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ). 12 In reviewing the sufficiency of the attorney-fee evidence in this case, the lodestar analysis applies.

2024See Hunsucker, 238 S.W.3d at 432 (citing Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882 ). 12 In reviewing the sufficiency of the attorney-fee evidence in this case, the lodestar analysis applies.

2019Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 803, 808-09 (2002).

2016See El Apple, 370 S.W.3d at 764 ; Sentinel Integrity Sols., Inc. v. Mistras Grp., Inc., 414 S.W.3d 911, 930 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied).

2015App’x at 225 (quoting Perdue, 559 U.S. at 558 ); see also Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492, 502 (5th Cir. 2013) (under abuse of discretion standard, a court of appeals is to inspect the trial court’s lodestar analysis to determine if the court sufficiently considered the proper criteria).

2015Vista Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lewis, 709 S.W.2d 176, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam) (reiterating well-settled rule Civil Procedure > Rem edies > Costs & Attorney Fees > that [HN1] "no evidence" points require rendition in Attorney Expenses & Fees > General Overview favor of appealing party); Elias v. Mr. Yamaha, Inc., 33 Legal Ethics > Client Relations > Attorney Fees > S.W.3d 54, 59 & n.6 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2000, no pet.) General Overview (construing appellant's challenge as a legal sufficiency [HN5] Attorneys are encouraged to use the lodestar challenge because he asked appellate court to render m