The opinion of the court was delivered by: GILES
Before the court is plaintiff's motion for attorney fees in accordance with provisions of the Truth-in-Lending Act. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640(a)(3). As the prevailing party, plaintiff is entitled to receive a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court. Defendant contends that an award of attorney fees is not appropriate because plaintiff was represented by Community Legal Services (CLS). Furthermore, defendant contests the amount of time plaintiff's attorneys claim to have spent on the case and challenges their hourly rates.
Defendant's contentions are rejected and plaintiff's motion for the award of attorney fees shall be granted.
I. Entitlement to Attorney Fees
The fact that plaintiff's attorneys were from CLS does not affect the award of attorney fees. In Manning v. Princeton Consumer Discount Co., 533 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1976), the court stated that attorney fees as provided for in the Truth-in-Lending Act may be awarded although counsel is from a legal services office. Defendant cites Engle v. Shapert Construction Co., 443 F. Supp. 1383 (M.D.Pa.1978), as support for his contention that plaintiff should not receive attorney fees because she was represented by CLS. There, the court declined to award attorney fees to a plaintiff who was represented by CLS in a claim under the Act because the most culpable party in the disputed transaction was defendant's agent whose whereabouts were unknown. The court thought it unjust to further penalize defendant for the acts of his agent. Id. at 1389. A different situation exists here. The defendant, not his agent, violated the Act. Furthermore, Lindy Bros. Builders v. American Radiator & Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973), held that "in awarding attorney fees, the district judge is empowered to exercise his informed discretion." Id. at 166.
Defendant asserts that Dzadovsky v. Lyons Ford Sales, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 606 (W.D.Pa.1978), aff'd, 593 F.2d 538 (3d Cir. 1979), supports the proposition that plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees. In Dzadovsky, plaintiff sued for damages including attorney fees because the disclosure statement in her automobile finance agreement contained alleged technical inaccuracies. The plaintiff, however, made no claim of actually being deceived or injured by the alleged errors. The court refused to award finance charges or attorney fees because there was only a technical violation of the Act and, therefore, damages were deemed inappropriate.
Id. at 607-08. In this case, there was a substantive violation of the Act, not a technical one.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees.
II. Determination of Attorney Fees
The court must determine the reasonable value of the services performed by plaintiff's attorneys. In Lindy, supra, the Third Circuit reviewed whether the amount of attorney fees awarded by the district court following a successful plumbing fixture anti-trust suit was proper. The court then established guidelines to aid the district court in determining the proper compensation for attorney's fees.
First, the trial court must compute the "lodestar" figure which consists of the attorney's hourly rate times the hours that he spent on the case. Id. at 167-68. In computing the lodestar figure, the appropriate amount for counsel's fee when a party is represented by CLS is a reasonable hourly rate. This rate should be comparable to salaries earned by private attorneys with similar experience and expertise. Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 913, 98 S. Ct. 2254, 56 L. Ed. 2d 414 (1978). In response to the Rodriguez decision, CLS adopted an hourly fee schedule for staff attorneys based upon a survey of area practitioners. The fee schedule is tied to the job classification of the attorney.
In 1979 when plaintiff's counsel, Eric Frank, Esquire, spent 56.75 hours working on the case he was classified as an Attorney III in the $ 60.00-$ 75.00 range. For those hours, he is requesting a $ 75.00 per hour rate. In 1980 and 1981 when he expended 12.25 hours he was classified as Attorney IV in the $ 75.00-$ 95.00 range; for those, he is requesting $ 85.00 per hour.
In 1979 Bruce Fox, Esquire, spent 4.5 hours on work related to the case. His classification was "Senior Attorney" and the salary range for that position was $ 75.00-$ 125.00. He is requesting $ 90.00 per hour.
Defendant disputes the rate of pay that Frank has requested but does not contest the fee for Fox. Defendant's contention that Frank should receive a lower fee because he is a young attorney is without merit. Defendant's reliance upon Postow v. Oriental Building Association, 455 F. Supp. 781 (D.D.C.1978), aff'd on relevant grounds, 637 F.2d 1370 (D.C.Cir. 1980), is utterly misplaced. In Postow the plaintiff was seeking the same hourly rate for both the partner who was in charge of the case and the young attorney with only two years of experience whose hours represented two-thirds of the total number of hours claimed. However, in the case at bar both attorneys billed their hours separately at the rate which was applicable for each one. In fact, the bulk of hours are charged to the attorney with the lower hourly fee. Furthermore, in Postow the affidavits disclosed a partner and associate relationship with the senior attorney ...