Settlement of All Claims, Settles All Claims

I was taught to expressly include costs and attorneys’ fees in any release or settlement agreement because – if I didn’t -- the opposing party would come back and demand that the client pay those claims on top of the settlement amount. I always did it but, frankly, I thought this was an urban legend. I was wrong -- this issue made it all the way to the Washington Supreme Court. The dispute in McGuire v Bates illustrates the wisdom of using belts and suspenders when drafting agreements.

After a settlement of $2,180 plaintiff asserted that the settlement of “all claims” did not include statutory attorneys fees, which are awarded to a prevailing party in Washington in certain situations. An arbitrator denied this claim; the Superior Court decided plaintiff was the prevailing party and awarded attorneys' fees, costs and interest on the settlement amount.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Washington Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed and ruled that a settlement of “all claims” includes a claim for attorney fees.

Despite this decision, it seems like a good idea to always expressly include costs and attorney fees in any settlement and release, since one superior court judge and an appellate panel saw this the other way. 
 

Two Interesting Cases re Awards of Attorneys' Fees For In-House Counsel Work

In the last two days, I have seen two interesting decisions regarding attorneys’ fee awards for in-house counsel litigation work. The first, AMX Enterprises, L.L.P. v. Masters Realty Corp.,  decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, has a comprehensive discussion of the appropriate measure of attorneys’ fees – should they be based upon market value or cost-plus value.  After surveying various jurisdictions, the court determined that market value is the appropriate measure.  The opinion also discusses the proof that should be submitted for an award.  Ultimately, the case was sent back for a new trial on the fee issue.

The second case, Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Network Solutions, Inc.  decided by Judge England of the USDC for the Eastern District of California, also discusses the proof necessary for an in-house counsel fee award.  Even while noting the “glaring lack of support” the court awarded $67,500 for the in-house services.

 While it is very nice to have your employer compensated for your work – and certainly provides strong evidence of an in-house litigator’s value to his or her employer, as well as, a basis for a nice bonus for a good result – these cases support the wisdom of keeping time records if there is the potential for an attorneys fee award.

Unfortunately, I was only able to find the Westlaw opinion for each of these cases.  If that is a problem, contact me.