## Facts

- Arthur J. Blanchard sued Deputy Sheriff James Bergeron and related officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Bergeron beat him and violated his civil rights.
- A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana awarded Blanchard $10,000 in damages.
- Blanchard had a contingent-fee agreement providing his attorney 40% of any recovery.
- The district court awarded $7,500 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to the prevailing plaintiff.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reduced the fee award to $4,000, treating the 40% contingent-fee agreement as a cap on recoverable § 1988 fees and disallowing law clerk and paralegal time as included in the contingency fee.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a private contingent-fee agreement limits a court’s § 1988 fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney’s fee awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is limited by, or capped at, the amount provided in a prevailing plaintiff’s contingent-fee agreement with counsel.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a fee awarded under § 1988 is not limited to the amount provided in the plaintiff’s contingent-fee arrangement.
- The Court rejected treating a contingent-fee percentage as an automatic ceiling on a reasonable § 1988 fee.
- The Court directed that reasonableness be evaluated under the lodestar framework, with the contingent-fee agreement considered only as one factor among others.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 1988, the starting point for a reasonable fee is the lodestar: reasonable hours expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, subject to limited adjustment.
- The lodestar carries a strong presumption of reasonableness; no single consideration may replace the lodestar analysis.
- A private contingent-fee agreement may be relevant to reasonableness but cannot, standing alone, impose an automatic limit on a statutory fee award.
- Construing contingent-fee contracts as caps conflicts with § 1988’s fee-shifting purpose of enabling effective civil rights enforcement regardless of the size or type of relief obtained.
- Courts retain discretion to award a reasonable fee in light of the circumstances, without being bound by the plaintiff’s private fee arrangement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1988 authorizes courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees determined primarily through the lodestar method, and that a prevailing plaintiff’s contingent-fee agreement does not cap the fee award, though it may be considered as one factor in assessing reasonableness.


Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989)