ÿWPCÌ ¢süÉ>Âv\ó_‚ùi’!íÃv\†+hMµÿ¶¼¹ÊÎÁ-l*2¶ì2ªpc[ö—&Ð0ð8Ra­euÖßóª é²HÅz9ƒ“‘Cü ËF»14¨ä+ZBÕoÇG~Í×Àqg ”°Õë¼ß)ˆÖUûî3°€<äsó•`œÀOúFý#ù˜©Jx¹¾䈄œALq‰ ‹¤‡ûìa.\JâV›@.Ëw¬2î“B„5ü“$S:“¯ä+r㢊¢Œžñܬ¦© Ç®Áåµ\]ôùízçg°³aS ÐÀ˜ `>Ò{ •¥vâZ¶ÄT_oUJt»ød{h¢*œáÁµÉWHvÖ ]ˆR=UÿFU›|BÀð$Iÿ‹ewOPuþë%*²Ere¦¦A|×Ä)f§抗ô¯óíÒòCLjÕkÅL´Ð²ÙÞݶi=ý­qÜm¡¹\E•Èj+‡-›* 7àÅs™åùœú[þè›û°gÚìƒ;fWÑS»YÁ@Þ¦^ ’š~w¦ 3ù‡‚A%9Üóèkû:AaÀ¹w|­Ý”4N„ç7jõpÙõ‡¬•¥š$‚{¯#°¶ oÝ\•_pný©§Q¯DóéìƒDÿb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNCVE›E±³³³³³öËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËbÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ 0ëÉÉÉÉ B´´ 0¤Ñ D3u D-¨ 0KÕÕ AS Æs 0¤9 0DÝ A«!˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»˜N2Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖƒF1ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó KANTASNAPPPersonelERVINHOWERTONVowellElizabthGarrettKeithsSizemoreKillingsworthapplie[sreache[sEyrich D.R.consitutionalSt.CtAdkinsonHarpethHensleyEckerhart L.Edfail[sPhelanBlaylockMotorosBittnerGanzevoortRusell Ñ X Ñ Ý ƒRáÉ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XUqX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡&LÊ%XXUqÔThis€Judgment€was€reduced€by€our€Court€on€the€first€appeal€to€$1,566.80.Ô#†XUqX%&LÊ~#Ôòòóó ìÝ ƒRáÉ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XUqX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô´Ý òXXUqÔTennessee€had€not€adopted€the€Model€Code€at€the€time€this€appeal€was€decided.€€- ù-(|G2áÉ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XUqX»»Ô d(|3‡ƒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡ƒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ý»»»ÔÑ8€UqXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€/VÑà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@††"ìàJune€2000€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XUqX»¼ýÔÌò òÔ#†¼ý»XXUq¬#ÔÓ  ÓKANTA€KEITH,€DARLENE€KEITH,€WALTER€JACKSON,€and€THOMASÐ Ò" ÐA.€SNAPP,€Personal€Representative€of€the€Estate€of€Darlene€Keith€v.€GENEÐ æ 6 ÐERVIN€HOWERTON€and€EASY€MONEY,€INC.òòóóÔ‡XUqX»¼ýÔó óÐ ú J ÐÓòÓÌà@¼ ¼ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyˆÐ ú J Ðà@Ë Ë ìàNo.€1„685„98€€€€€€Hon.€Dale€C.€Workman,€Circuit€JudgeˆÐ æ 6  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  ÐÌà@” ” ìàNo.€E2003„02210„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€€„€FILED€OCTOBER€28,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_Ô€ˆÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í Ðó óÌThe€Trial€Court€awarded€plaintiffsðð€attorneys€fees€pursuant€to€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€OnÐ xÈ Ðappeal€we€modify€by€increasing€the€award€of€fees.Ð d´ ÐÌÌÔ#†¼ý»XXUqÏ#ÔÔ‡XUqX»¼ýÔò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed,€as€Modified.ó óÐ (x ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€Ô_ÔP.Jóó.Ô_Ô,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€D.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,Ð ì< ÐJóó.,€and€Howell€N.€Peoples,€Ô_ÔSp.J.Ô_Ô,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌÔ#†¼ý»XXUq#ÔÔ‡XUqX»¼ýÔÌDonald€K.€Vowell€and€Elizabth€K.€Johnson,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellants.Ð œì ÐÌCraig€L.€Garrett,€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€Appellees.Ð t Ä ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ý»XXUqï#ÔÔ‡XUqX»¼ýԈР$$t# ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issue€before€us€isÔ‡ X,3XXXUqÔ€whether€the€Trial€Court€abused€its€discretion€in€its€award€ofÐ ü%L!% Ðattorney€fees€to€the€plaintiffs.€€The€plaintiffs€had€prevailed€in€a€Consumer€Protection€Act€claim.€Ð è&8"& ÐÌà  àà ` àPertinent€to€this€issue€is€the€history€of€this€case.€€This€is€the€third€appeal€of€the€caseÐ À($( Ðwhich€began€in€1998€alleging€a€violation€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€Upon€the€second€remand,Ð ¬)ü$) Ðthe€Trial€Court€awarded€plaintiffs€$4,500.00€in€attorney€fees€which€equates€to€an€hourly€rate€ofÐ ˜*è%* Ð$15.00.€€Plaintiffsðð€counsel€argues€that€he€expended€298.8€hours€in€litigation€of€this€case€fromÐ „+Ô&+ Ðinception€through€two€appeals,€and€that€he€should€have€an€hourly€rate€of€$125.00€to€$150.00€an€hourÐ p,À', Ðfor€his€professional€time.€€He€also€submitted€testimony€by€affidavit€from€four€attorneys€who€opinedÐ \-¬(-ýV ÐÑ/VÑâ âÑX°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôthat€the€amount€of€requested€fees€was€reasonable€and€appropriate€for€services€performed.€€TheÐ ° Ðdefendants€presented€no€countervailing€proof€on€this€issue.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffsðð€Alleged€violation€of€the€Truth€and€Lending€Act,€the€Tennessee€PawnÐ tÄ ÐBrokersðð€Act,€and€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Act.€€Upon€trial,€the€Trial€Court€found€that€defendantsððÐ `° Ðactions€violated€the€Pawnbrokersðð€Act,€but€did€not€violate€the€Consumer€Protection€Act,€andÐ L œ ÐJudgments€were€entered€for€$2,250.00׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€the€Keiths,€and€$1,100.00€for€Jackson.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€lower€Court€as€to€the€value€of€the€property,€butÐ  ` Ðreversed€the€Trial€Court€and€held€that€there€was€a€violation€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act,€in€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€defendantsðð€deception€was€knowing€and€willful.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a).€€The€CourtÐ è 8  Ðremanded€the€case€for€determination€of€whether€plaintiffs€were€entitled€to€treble€damages€andÐ Ô$  Ðattorneysðð€fees,€pursuant€to€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€On€remand,€the€Trial€Court€declined€toÐ À  Ðaward€treble€damages,€but€did€augment€the€Judgment€for€the€Keiths€by€$444.00€and€by€$650.00€toÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€plaintiff€Jackson.€€Judgments€were€entered€for€$2,010.20€and€$1,750.00€respectively.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€awarded€fees€of€$2,000.00€plus€discretionary€costs€of€$340.00.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€appealed€the€award€of€attorney€fees€as€unreasonably€low,€as€well€as€theÐ H˜ Ðfailure€to€award€treble€damages.€€This€Court€held€that€the€statute€does€not€mandate€an€award€of€trebleÐ 4„ Ðdamages€upon€a€finding€of€willful€or€knowing€violation€and€that€the€record€supported€the€denial€ofÐ  p Ðtreble€damages€because€defendantsðð€deception€was€not€egregious,€and€we€concluded€the€Trial€CourtÐ  \ Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€augmenting€but€not€trebling€plaintiffsðð€damages.€€òòKeith€v.€Howerton,óóÐ øH Ð2002€WL€31840683€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€attorneysðð€fees,€we€held€that€the€Trial€Court€had€erred€on€remandÐ ¼  Ðby€improperly€basing€its€determination€almost€exclusively€on€the€proportionality€of€the€JudgmentÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€amount€of€fees€requested.€€We€explicitly€held€that€plaintiffs€were€successful€in€the€case€in€chiefÐ ”ä Ðand€on€both€appeals,€and€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€again€for€a€proper€determination€of€attorneysððÐ €Ð Ðfees,€to€be€guided€by€consideration€of€the€factors€listed€in€DR€2„106(b)€and€relevant€case€law.€òòId.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àóóAt€the€hearing€on€the€second€remand€the€Trial€Court€found€that€the€requested€feesÐ D!” Ðwere€ð ðexcessive,€exorbitant€and€not€justified€by€the€case€in€any€wayðð,€and€ordered€a€total€attorneysððÐ 0"€  Ðfee€award€of€$4,500.00,€and€this€appeal€followed.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€general€breakdown€of€plaintiffsðð€counselððs€fees€requested€is€as€follows:€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌà  àà0 ` àFrom€filing€of€case€through€trial:à0` (#` (#à$€€8,993.00и'#&(#(# Ðà  àà0 ` àFirst€appealà0` (#` (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à€€14,337.50Ф(ô#'(#(# Ðà  àà0 ` àTrial€court€on€1òòstóó€remand:à0À` (#` (#àà0À(#À(#à€€€€€2,955.00Ð)à$((#(# Ðà  àà0 ` àSecond€appeal:à0h` (#` (#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à€€€15,057.50Ð|*Ì%)(#(# Ðà  àà0 ` àTrial€court€on€second€remand:à0` (#` (#à€€€€€2,205.00Ðh+¸&*(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà0 ¸ àTOTAL:à0h¸ (#¸ (#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à€$43,548.00à0È(#(#à(through€5/30/03)аÈ(#È(# Ðà@ìì*ìàò òó óˆÌà  àà ` àAppellate€decisions€become€the€law€of€the€case€that€is€binding€on€the€parties€and€theÐ ˆØ ÐTrial€Court€on€remand.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Sizemore€v.€United€Physicians€Ins.€Risk€Retention€Group,óó€56Ð tÄ ÐS.W.3d€557,€566€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àAttorneys€are€obligated€to€exercise€the€utmost€good€faith€in€performing€their€dutiesÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€their€representation€of€their€clients,€and€in€so€doing€are€ð ðentitled€to€the€reasonable,€agreed„uponÐ $ t Ðcompensation€òòwithout€regard€to€the€actual€benefit€the€services€might€have€been€to€the€client.ðð€óó€òòFellÐ  ` Ðv.€Rambo,óó€36€S.W.3d€837,€852€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(emphasis€added).€€The€ð ðdetermination€ofÐ ü L  Ðreasonable€attorneysðð€fees€and€costs€is€necessarily€a€discretionary€inquiryðð€by€the€Trial€Court,€toÐ è 8  Ðwhich€the€appellate€courts€will€defer,€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòKillingsworth€v.€Ted€RussellÐ Ô$  ÐFord,óó€104€S.W.3d€530,€534€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).€€A€Court€abuses€its€discretion€when€it€ð ðeitherÐ À  Ðapplie[s]€an€incorrect€legal€standard€or€reache[s]€a€clearly€unreasonable€decision,€thereby€causing€anÐ ¬ü  Ðinjustice€to€the€aggrieved€party.ðð€òòKline€v.€Eyrich,óó€69€S.W.3d€197,€204,€209€(Tenn.€2002).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€directed€that€when€deciding€attorney€fees€the€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourts€should€consider€the€guidelines€as€delineated€in€òòConnors€v.€Connors,óó€594€S.W.2d€672,€677Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€1980),€and€also€to€the€factors€listed€in€S.€Ct.€Rule€8,€D.R.€2„106.€€The€òòConnorsóó€guidelines€are:€Ð H˜ Ðthe€time€devoted€to€performing€the€legal€service;€€the€time€limitations€imposed€by€the€circumstances;Ð 4„ Ðthe€novelty€and€difficulty€of€the€questions€involved;€the€skill€requisite€to€perform€the€legal€serviceÐ  p Ðproperly;€the€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€for€similar€services;€the€amount€involved€andÐ  \ Ðthe€results€obtained;€the€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€the€lawyer€performing€the€legalÐ øH Ðservice.€€òòConnors,€óó594€S.W.2d€at€676.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóThe€Tennessee€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€D.R.€2„106(B)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€lists€similarÐ ¼  Ðcriteria,€though€not€identical€to€the€òòConnorsóó€guidelines:Ð ¨ø Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à(B).€.€.€Factors€to€be€considered€as€guides€in€determining€the€reasonableness€of€a€feeÐ €Ð Ðinclude€the€following:Ðl¼` (#` (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à(1)€The€time€and€labor€required,€the€novelty€and€difficulty€of€the€questionsÐ D!” Ðinvolved,€and€the€skill€requisite€to€perform€the€legal€service€properly;Ð0"€ ` (#` (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à(2)€The€likelihood,€if€apparent€to€the€client,€that€the€acceptance€of€theÐ $X" Ðparticular€employment€will€preclude€other€employment€by€the€lawyer;Ðô$D #` (#` (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à(3)€The€fee€customarily€charged€in€the€locality€for€similar€legal€services;ÐÌ&"%` (#` (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à(4)€The€amount€involved€and€the€results€obtained;Ф(ô#'` (#` (# Ðà  àà0 ` àà ¸ à(5)€The€time€limitations€imposed€by€the€client€or€by€the€circumstances;Ð)à$(` (#` (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à(6)€The€nature€and€length€of€the€professional€relationship€with€the€client;Ðh+¸&*` (#` (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à(7)€The€experience,€reputation,€and€ability€of€the€lawyer€or€lawyersÐ œì Ðperforming€the€services;€andЈØ` (#` (# Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ à(8)€Whether€the€fee€is€fixed€or€contingent.Ð`°` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` àUltimately,€the€reasonableness€of€an€attorneyððs€fee€will€depend€upon€the€particularÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstances€of€the€individual€case,€as€considered€in€light€of€the€relevant€guidelines.€€òòWhite€v.Ð $ t ÐMcBride,óó€937€S.W.2d€796,€800€(Tenn.€1996).€€ð ðA€fee€is€excessive€if€ððafter€review€of€the€facts,€aÐ  ` Ðlawyer€of€ordinary€prudence€would€be€left€with€a€definite€and€firm€conviction€that€the€fee€is€in€excessÐ ü L  Ðof€a€reasonable€feeðððð.€€òòFellóó,€36€S.W.3d€852,€òòquotingóó€Tenn.€S.Ct.€R.€8,€DR€2„106(B);€€òòIn€re€DavisððsÐ è 8  ÐEstateóó,€719€S.W.2d€526,€528€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€genesis€of€the€reported€state€and€federal€case€law€regarding€shifting€attorneysððÐ ¬ü  Ðfees€arises€from€the€Civil€Rights€Attorneyððs€Fees€Awards€Act€of€1976€and€1988,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1988(b)Ð ˜è  Ð(1994).€€A€party€is€considered€ð ðprevailingðð€for€purposes€of€the€civil€rights€statutes€upon€proving€anyÐ „Ô  Ðconstitutional€violation,€even€one€entitling€the€party€to€only€nominal€damages€or€minimal€relief.€€òòSeeóó,Ð pÀ ÐòòFarrar€v.€Hobby,€óó506€U.S.€103,€115,€113€St.Ct.€566,€573,€121€L.Ed.2d€494€(1992).€€Tennessee€courtsÐ \¬ Ðhave€consistently€held€that€the€policy€rationale€underpinning€the€civil€rights€statutesðð€fee€shiftingÐ H˜ Ðprovisions€are€likewise€applicable€to€cases€arising€under€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€òòSee€AdkinsonÐ 4„ Ðv.€Harpeth€Ford„Mercury,€Inc.,óó€1991€WL€17177€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòKeith€v.€Howertonóó,€2002Ð  p ÐWL€31840683€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€a€plaintiff€prevails€in€either€a€civil€rights€or€consumer€protection€claim,€hisÐ ä4 Ðcounsel€will€ordinarily€be€entitled€to€full€compensation€for€time€and€effort€expended€in€theÐ Ð  Ðrepresentation.€€òòHensley€v.€Eckerhartóó,€461€U.S.€424,€435,€103€S.Ct.€1933,€76€L.Ed.2d€40€(1983).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€òòHensleyóó€Court€opined€that€no€ð ðprecise€formulaðð€exists€for€determining€aÐ ”ä Ðreasonable€fee,€but€it€also€specifically€rejected€a€ð ðmathematical€approachðð€that€simply€compares€theÐ €Ð Ðnumber€of€issues€on€which€the€plaintiff€prevailed€to€the€total€number€of€issues€overall€in€dispute.€Ð l¼ ÐòòHensley,€óó461€U.S.€at€435€n.11.€€Also,€if€only€a€partial€or€limited€success€is€achieved,€a€fee€determinedÐ X ¨ Ðby€the€calculation€of€hours€multiplied€by€an€hourly€rate€could€be€excessive.€òòId.óó€at€434„436.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€the€Trial€Court€in€this€case€advanced€several€reasons€for€the€award€of€attorneysððÐ #l! Ðfees,€it€is€clear€that€a€proportionality€rationale€governed€the€Trial€Courtððs€arriving€at€the€amount€ofÐ $X" Ðfee.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€seminal€case€on€the€proportionality€issue€is€òòCity€of€Riverside€v.€Riveraóó,€477€U.S.Ð Ì&"% Ð561,€576„578,€106€S.Ct.€2686,€2695„96,€91€L.Ed.€466€(1986).€€In€òòRiverside,óó€the€prevailing€plaintiffsÐ ¸'#& Ðrecovered€a€judgment€of€$33,350.00.€€The€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€district€courtððs€award€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfull€amount€of€attorneyððs€fees€of€$245,000.00€despite€the€enormous€disparity:€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àA€rule€that€limits€attorneyððs€fees€in€civil€rights€cases€to€a€proportion€of€the€damagesÐ h+¸&* Ðawarded€would€seriously€undermine€Congressðð€purpose€in€enacting€ðð€1988€.€.€.Ð T,¤'+ Ðbecause€.€.€.€the€private€market€for€legal€services€fail[s]€to€provide€many€victims€ofÐ @-(, Ðcivil€rights€violations€with€òòeffective€access€to€the€judicial€processóó.€.€.€.òò€óóThese€victimsÐ ,.|)- Ðordinarily€cannot€afford€to€purchase€legal€services€at€the€rates€set€by€the€privateÐ ° Ðmarket.Мì` (#` (# ÐÌà@  'ìà*€*€*€ˆÐ tÄ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àMoreover,€the€contingent€fee€arrangements€that€make€legal€services€available€toÐ L œ Ðmany€victims€of€personal€injuries€would€often€not€encourage€lawyers€to€accept€civilÐ 8 ˆ Ðrights€cases,€òòwhich€frequently€involve€substantial€expenditures€of€time€and€effort€butÐ $ t Ðproduce€only€small€monetary€recoveriesóó.Ð `` (#` (# ÐÌà@$$(ìà*€*€*ˆÐ è 8  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àA€rule€of€proportionality€would€make€it€difficult,€if€not€impossible€for€individualsÐ À  Ðwith€meritorious€civil€rights€claims€but€òòrelatively€small€potential€damages€óóto€obtainÐ ¬ü  Ðredress€from€the€courts.€.€.€.€Congress€recognized€that€private„sector€fee€arrangementsÐ ˜è  Ðwere€inadequate€to€ensure€òòsufficiently€vigorous€enforcement€óóof€civil€rights.€€In€orderÐ „Ô  Ðto€ensure€that€lawyers€would€be€willing€to€represent€persons€with€legitimate€civilÐ pÀ Ðrights€grievances,€Congress€determined€that€it€would€be€necessary€to€compensateÐ \¬ Ðlawyers€for€all€time€reasonably€expended€on€a€case.€€(emphases€added).ÐH˜` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` àApplying€òòRiversideóó,€the€Sixth€Circuit€held€that€it€is€appropriate€to€examine€theÐ  p Ðrelationship€between€the€degree€of€success€and€the€amount€of€a€fee€requested,€concluding€that€feeÐ  \ Ðawards€should€not€be€reduced€by€the€ratio€of€successful€claims€to€the€total€claims€advanced.€€òòPhelanÐ øH Ðv.€Bellóó,€8€F.3d€369,€373€(Sixth€Cir.€1993).€€òòAccord:€Blaylock€v.€John€Hopkins€Federal€Credit€Unionóó,Ð ä4 Ð831€A.2d€1120€(Md.€Ct.€App.€2003);€òòJordan€v.€Transnational€Motoros,€Inc.óó,€537€N.W.2d€471,€474Ð Ð  Ð(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòBittner€v.€Tri„County€Toyota,€Inc.óó,€569€N.E.2d€464€(Ohio€1991).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€second€appeal€of€this€case,€Judge€Susanoððs€Opinion€firmly€embraces€theÐ ”ä Ðrationale€in€òòRiverside,óó€unequivocally€rejecting€the€proportionality€reasoning€relied€upon€by€the€TrialÐ €Ð ÐCourt€in€this€case:Ð l¼ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€determining€the€amount€of€fees€and€expenses€to€award,€the€issue€is€òònotóó€how€theÐ D!” Ðfees€requested€compare€to€the€amounts€eventually€awarded€to€the€plaintiffs;€rather,Ð 0"€  Ðthe€issue€is€how€the€requested€fees€and€expense€measure€up€under€DR€2„106€and€theÐ #l! Ðapplicable€case€law.€€Relying€on€the€language€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,Ð $X" Ðwe€have€observed€that€the€purpose€behind€the€allowance€of€attorneyððs€fees€in€the€ActÐ ô$D # Ðis€to€encourage€attorneys€to€take€these€sorts€of€cases€where€the€recovery€may€be€smallÐ à%0!$ Ðand€the€amount€of€time€expended€may€be€great.ÐÌ&"%` (#` (# ÐÌà@VV)ìà***ˆÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€an€attempt€to€discourage€these€practices€and€to€insure€that€such€practices€areÐ |*Ì%) Ðrectified€when€they€do€exist,€the€General€Assembly€sought€to€encourage€legalÐ h+¸&* Ðrepresentation€of€injured€parties,€regardless€of€the€amounts€of€their€claims.€€ThisÐ T,¤'+ Ðobjective€would€be€thwarted,€especially€with€respect€to€small€claims€if€theÐ @-(, Ðproportionality€approach€were€to€be€adopted.€€We€hold€that€such€an€approach€isÐ ,.|)- Ðcontrary€to€the€public€policy€embodied€in€the€Act.€Ð°` (#` (# ÐÌòòKeith€v.€Howerton,€óó2002€WL€31840683€òò*7.óó€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factors€weighing€in€defendantsðð€favor€under€the€Tennessee€Code€of€ProfessionalÐ `° ÐResponsibility,€D.R.€2„106(B)€include€the€amount€involved€and€the€results€obtained€and€somewhatÐ L œ Ðunique€to€this€case€was€the€number€of€hours€expended€by€plaintiffsðð€counsel€to€obtain€reasonableÐ 8 ˆ Ðattorneysðð€fees.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffsðð€counsel€provided€time€records€and€affidavits€of€expert€opinion,€and€it€isÐ ü L  Ðfair€to€conclude€that€these€experts€would€have€considered€the€Trial€Courtððs€fee€award€unreasonable.€Ð è 8  ÐMoreover,€defendants€introduced€no€countervailing€evidence€to€show€the€requested€fees€wereÐ Ô$  Ðunreasonable.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€is€to€be€liberally€construed€to€protectÐ ˜è  Ðconsumers€and€others€from€those€engaged€in€deceptive€acts€or€practices.€€òòMorris€v.€Mackððs€UsedÐ „Ô  ÐCarsóó,€824€S.W.2d€538€(Tenn.€1992);€òòGanzevoort€v.€Russellóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€297€(Tenn.€1997).€€AsÐ pÀ ÐJudge€Susano€noted€in€the€prior€appeal,€and€the€òòCity€of€Riversideóó€makes€clear,€the€rule€ofÐ \¬ Ðproportionality€would€make€it€difficult,€if€not€impossible,€for€individuals€with€meritorious€claims€butÐ H˜ Ðrelatively€small€potential€of€damages€to€obtain€redress€from€the€courts€without€the€attorneys€for€suchÐ 4„ Ðparties€to€be€reasonably€compensated€for€their€legal€services€in€obtaining€the€relief€sought.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€evidence€presented€in€this€case€and€applying€case€lawÐ øH Ðand€the€factors€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility,€D.R.€2„106(B),€weÐ ä4 Ðconclude€that€plaintiffsðð€counsel€is€entitled€to€a€reasonable€fee€in€the€amount€of€$18,000.00€togetherÐ Ð  Ðwith€costs.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€modify€the€award€of€attorneysðð€fees€made€by€the€TrialÐ ”ä ÐJudge€and€remand€with€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€the€defendants.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌà  àÌÌÔ#†XUqXX X,3ˆ #ÔÔ#†¼ý»XXUq$ #ÔòòóóÔ‡XUqX»¼ýÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€P.J.óóÔ#†¼ý»XXUqwX#ÔÔ‡XUqX»¼ýÔ