## Facts

- Landowners adjacent to a municipal landfill sued the City of Burlington, Vermont, alleging violations of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, CWA).
- The landowners’ counsel was retained on a contingent-fee basis.
- The district court found statutory violations and ordered closure of the landfill by a specified date.
- The district court held plaintiffs were substantially prevailing parties entitled to “reasonable” attorney’s fees under SWDA § 6972(e) and CWA § 1365(d).
- The court calculated a lodestar of $198,027.50 (reasonable hours × reasonable rate) and enhanced it by 25% based on contingency risk and asserted difficulty obtaining competent counsel without enhancement.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the fee award, including the contingency enhancement.

## Issues

1. Whether SWDA § 6972(e) and CWA § 1365(d) permit enhancing a lodestar attorney’s fee award to reflect contingency-fee risk of nonpayment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded.
- The Court held that the SWDA and CWA fee-shifting provisions do not permit enhancing the lodestar to account for contingency risk.
- The Court left undisturbed the merits rulings and prevailing-party status, addressing only the fee-enhancement component.

## Legal Principles

- Under typical federal fee-shifting statutes authorizing a “reasonable attorney’s fee,” the lodestar (reasonable hours × reasonable rate) is the presumptive measure of reasonableness.
- Contingency-risk enhancements are not permitted because they effectively compensate for time in unsuccessful cases, are unnecessary under the lodestar approach, and increase arbitrariness and litigation over fees.
- A rule allowing contingency enhancements cannot be reliably limited to a small subset of contingent-fee cases based on statutory text.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal fee-shifting provisions in the SWDA and CWA require fee awards based on the lodestar and bar upward adjustments solely to compensate for the risk of nonpayment inherent in contingent-fee representation.


City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992)