(1) In determining the amount of an attorney fee or licensed legal paraprofessional fee award, the court shall exercise sound discretion. When granting an award of attorney fees or licensed legal paraprofessional fees, the court shall specifically set forth the reasons for the award and must consider the following factors, among others, in determining whether to assess attorney fees or licensed legal paraprofessional fees and the amount of fees to be assessed against any offending attorney, licensed legal paraprofessional, or party:
(a) The extent of any effort made to determine the validity of any action or claim before said action or claim was asserted;
(b) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to reduce the number of claims or defenses being asserted or to dismiss claims or defenses found not to be valid within an action;
(c) The availability of facts to assist a party in determining the validity of a claim or defense;
(d) The relative financial positions of the parties involved;
(e) Whether or not the action was prosecuted or defended, in whole or in part, in bad faith;
(f) Whether or not issues of fact determinative of the validity of a party's claim or defense were reasonably in conflict;
(g) The extent to which the party prevailed with respect to the amount of and number of claims in controversy;
(h) The amount and conditions of any offer of judgment or settlement as related to the amount and conditions of the ultimate relief granted by the court.
Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 797, § 2, effective July 1. L. 84: Entire section R&RE, p. 461, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2024: IP(1) amended, (HB 24-1291), ch. 131, p. 467, § 6, effective August 7.
13-17-104. Fee arrangements between attorney or licensed legal paraprofessional and client. The attorney or licensed legal paraprofessional and the client are free to negotiate in private the actual fee that the client is to pay the client's attorney or licensed legal paraprofessional.
Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 798, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2024: Entire section amended, (HB 24-1291), ch. 131, p. 467, § 7, effective August 7.
Notes of Decisions
In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1997).
· cites it 14× “(1997), and under section 13-17-103, 5 C.R.S. (1997), which contains eight factors to consider for an award of attorney fees and costs under section 13-17-102.”
City of Aurora v. Colorado State Eng'r, 105 P.3d 595 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 5× “These factors, set forth in section 13-17-103 (l)(a) — (h) are: (a) The extent of any effort made to determine the validity of any action or claim before said action or claim was asserted; (b) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to reduce the number…”
Stokes v. Denver Newspaper Agency, LLP, 159 P.3d 691 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Section 13-17-103(1), C.R.S.2005. Here, the trial court did not identify in its order why it awarded attorney fees.”
Munoz v. Measner, 247 P.3d 1031 (Colo. 2011).
· cites it 9× “(2008), because the trial court did not use the factors laid out in § 13-17-103(1), C.R.S. (2008), to assess whether attorney fees were warranted.”
Lees v. James, 2018 COA 173 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“]” § 13-17-103(1). ¶ 47 Here, with respect to the opposition to both the motion to dismiss and the motion for attorney’s fees, the trial court explicitly declined to find that Patterson’s or Lees’s positions lacked substantial justification.”
Pedlow v. Stamp, 776 P.2d 382 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 8× “We granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s award of attorney fees when the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the award and did not set forth any findings in granting the award of attorney fees under section…”
Talco, Ltd. v. Danielson, 769 P.2d 468 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 8× “Section 13-17-103 contains a nonexclusive list of factors that a court must consider in determining whether to assess attorney fees.”
Harrison v. Smith, 821 P.2d 832 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “" Section 13-17-103. Proof of damages is, of course, an essential element of plaintiff's claims.”
Bd. of Com'rs, Boulder Cnty. v. Eason, 976 P.2d 271 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “In determining if an award of attorney fees is warranted and in assessing the amount of such fees under § 13-17-102, the trial court is required to make findings based on the relevant factors set out in § 13-17-103(1), C.R.S.1997 to permit meaningful appellate review of its…”
Bilawsky v. Faseehudin, 916 P.2d 586 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 5× “Section 13-17-103, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Double Oak Constr. L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Dev. Int'l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “We also reject defendants’ assertion that the award of attorney fees must be vacated because the trial court failed to consider the apportionment factor set forth in § 13-17-103(l)(g), C.R.S.2002. Here, the court made the attorney fees award in the course of the trial and not in…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1) — 36 cases
In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1997).
“(1997), and under section 13-17-103, 5 C.R.S. (1997), which contains eight factors to consider for an award of attorney fees and costs under section 13-17-102.”
City of Aurora v. Colorado State Eng'r, 105 P.3d 595 (Colo. 2005).
“These factors, set forth in section 13-17-103 (l)(a) — (h) are: (a) The extent of any effort made to determine the validity of any action or claim before said action or claim was asserted; (b) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to reduce the number…”
Stokes v. Denver Newspaper Agency, LLP, 159 P.3d 691 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Section 13-17-103(1), C.R.S.2005. Here, the trial court did not identify in its order why it awarded attorney fees.”
Lees v. James, 2018 COA 173 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“]” § 13-17-103(1). ¶ 47 Here, with respect to the opposition to both the motion to dismiss and the motion for attorney’s fees, the trial court explicitly declined to find that Patterson’s or Lees’s positions lacked substantial justification.”
Munoz v. Measner, 247 P.3d 1031 (Colo. 2011).
“(2008), because the trial court did not use the factors laid out in § 13-17-103(1), C.R.S. (2008), to assess whether attorney fees were warranted.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(a) — 4 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(b) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(c) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(d) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(e) — 3 cases
Munoz v. Measner, 247 P.3d 1031 (Colo. 2011).
“(2008), because the trial court did not use the factors laid out in § 13-17-103(1), C.R.S. (2008), to assess whether attorney fees were warranted.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(f) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(g) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(1)(h) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(l)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103(l)(g) — 1 case
Double Oak Constr. L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Dev. Int'l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
“We also reject defendants’ assertion that the award of attorney fees must be vacated because the trial court failed to consider the apportionment factor set forth in § 13-17-103(l)(g), C.R.S.2002. Here, the court made the attorney fees award in the course of the trial and not in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.