In the federal courts, court-appointed lawyers in complex cases must have their fee requests judicially approved. Spokane lawyer Gerald R. Smith requested a large fee request for a court-appointed case - over $46,000. The trial court hinted that Mr. Smith's performance was not worthy of $46,000:
[T]he Honorable Justin L. Quackenbush, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington and the presiding judge in the underlying matter, sent Mr. Smith a letter responding to his claim. The letter explained that, while Judge Quackenbush had previously categorizedthe case as “complex” for excess compensation purposes,18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(3), he was hesitant to approve an additional $46,930.80, the full amount Mr. Smith was now requesting. He explained the court’s concerns and ordered that Mr. Smith come to court for a hearing to determine theappropriateness of the fee request.
Mr. Smith didn't take the hint. When the judge awarded only half of Smith's request, Smith appealed. Which led to a published opinion that leads one to believe that Mr. Smith isn't a very good lawyer:
Judge Quackenbush ultimately cut almost half of Mr. Smith’s requested out-of-court hours from the second-interim voucher. This is certainly more than a “haircut.” However, the experienced district judge provided not just lengthy, but also crystal clear, explanations for this deduction in a letter, a sixpage order, and orally on the record when examining the propriety of the fees sought. The court found that Mr. Smith spent very little time cross-examining witnesses during the one-week trial, and in doing so introduced only two trial exhibits. His opening statement was terse, consuming only ten minutes, and he called no witnesses of his own. The court concluded that Mr. Smith had very little to show for the nearly 700 hours of out-of-court preparation sought in the initial and second interim vouchers.
Ouch.
