## Facts

- Community and civil-rights plaintiffs brought a Voting Rights Act § 2 challenge to Albany County’s 2002 legislative redistricting plan.
- In earlier appellate proceedings, plaintiffs obtained relief relating to the redistricting remedy and then sought appellate attorneys’ fees under federal fee-shifting statutes.
- The court of appeals granted the fee request in principle but directed the district court to calculate a reasonable fee, generally using prevailing rates in the Northern District of New York, unless circumstances justified using higher out-of-district rates.
- On remand, the district court granted fees in part and denied them in part, applying Northern District rates and making reductions to requested rates and/or hours.
- Plaintiffs appealed the fee order, arguing the district court treated the forum rule as a rigid ceiling and required an excessively demanding showing before considering out-of-district rates.

## Issues

1. What method governs calculation of a “reasonable attorney’s fee” under federal fee-shifting statutes, including the proper role of the hours-times-rate calculation.
2. Whether the forum rule requires use of the in-district market rate absent “extraordinary” circumstances, or instead permits departures when retaining out-of-district counsel was reasonable.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in setting hourly rates and compensable hours for plaintiffs’ appellate fee request.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit clarified that the traditional “lodestar” is best understood as the “presumptively reasonable fee,” reflecting what a reasonable paying client would pay to litigate effectively while minimizing unnecessary expense.
- The court held the forum rule is a starting point: courts generally use prevailing rates in the district where they sit, but may adjust rates upward when a reasonable client would have retained out-of-district counsel in light of available local expertise and case demands.
- The court rejected any requirement that a party show “extraordinary” circumstances as a prerequisite to considering out-of-district rates.
- Applying the clarified standard to the record, the court affirmed the district court’s fee award as within the range of permissible discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A reasonable fee under federal fee-shifting statutes is the “presumptively reasonable fee”: the product of reasonable hours and a reasonable hourly rate, informed by the market rate a reasonable paying client would accept.
- The “reasonable paying client” benchmark asks what a client seeking effective representation would pay while limiting costs to those necessary for the litigation.
- The forum rule generally favors rates prevailing in the district of the court, but it does not operate as an inflexible cap.
- Out-of-district rates may be used or reflected in an adjusted rate when retaining out-of-district counsel was a reasonable choice and comparable in-district counsel was not reasonably available for the matter at lower rates.
- Factors bearing on reasonableness include the difficulty of the case, required skill, counsel’s experience and reputation, the risk of nonpayment, the time and labor required, and the results obtained; these considerations inform both hours and rate.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit refined its attorney-fee framework by treating the hours-times-rate computation as a “presumptively reasonable fee” grounded in the choices of a reasonable paying client, and by applying the forum rule as a rebuttable default rather than a strict ceiling; nonetheless, it upheld the district court’s fee award as not an abuse of discretion.


Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 484 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2007)