The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause comes on an application for the fixing of counsel
fees and for reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs.
This application is submitted on behalf of all counsel for the
class representatives in the above-captioned consolidated
actions. The Settlement Agreement which this Court approved on
June 4, 1973, after a full hearing and appropriate notice to the
members of the class, specifically provided that applicants were
to receive from defendant exchanges their counsel fees and
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and expenses, all as
determined by this Court.
The applicants contend that since the time for appeal from the
order approving the settlement has expired and the order has
become final, they are entitled to receive such counsel fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses. The applicants request that
this Court fix their counsel fees and allow reimbursement of
their out-of-pocket costs and expenses as follows:
Counsel Fees ........................... $2,250,000.00
and Expenses .............................. $14,486.25
The applicants and defendants have submitted memoranda and
affidavits in support of their respective positions. On December
7, 1973 a hearing was held on this matter and pursuant to this
Court's request at that hearing the applicants have filed more
detailed affidavits and memoranda in support of their
application. This Court has seriously examined the memoranda and
affidavits submitted by the parties in support of their
respective positions and carefully weighed the testimony and
arguments made at the hearing on December 7, 1973.
It is within the exercise of this Court's informed discretion
to decide upon the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and
out-of-pocket expenses. Tranberg v. Tranberg, 456 F.2d 173 (3rd
Cir. 1972); Cappel v. Adams, 434 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1970).
Various objective "checklists" have been devised as guidelines
for determining a fair award of attorneys' fees. See Hanover
Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machine Corporation, 245 F. Supp. 258
(M.D.Pa. 1965), vacated on other grounds, 377 F.2d 776 (3rd Cir.
1967), affirmed in part on other grounds, 392 U.S. 481, 88 S.Ct.
2224, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968); Colson v. Hilton Hotels
Corporation, 59 F.R.D. 324 (N.D.Ill. 1972); Trans World Airlines,
Inc. v. Hughes et al., 312 F. Supp. 478 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); In re
Osofsky, 50 F.2d 925 (S.D.N.Y. 1931). It is the opinion of this
Court that the following factors are important to the proper
determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees:
I. The Magnitude and Complexity of the Litigation.
A. The number of parties to the action.
B. The complexity of the issues contained in the
C. The social effect of litigation.
D. Whether plaintiffs' or defendants' counsel had
the benefit of a prior judgment or decree in a
similar or identical case brought by the
Government or a private party.
E. The significance of the litigation and the
II. The Quality of the Services Provided.
A. The eminence of the attorneys at the bar and in
the specialty in which they are practicing.
B. The value of the attorneys' work in the instant
case as demonstrated by skill involved in
drafting the pleadings and memoranda, and the
quality of the arguments before the ...