## Facts

- Dennis and Carol Steiger contracted with developer/builders to construct a new home.
- Construction and post-construction problems arose, including work performed by an unlicensed plumber retained by a developer.
- The Steigers sued, asserting breach of contract and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), which permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.
- After trial, the Steigers prevailed on certain claims and were awarded more than $26,000 in damages.
- The Steigers requested more than $22,000 in CUTPA attorney’s fees, supported by time records and an affidavit.
- The trial court awarded $7,500 in attorney’s fees, reasoning the request was unreasonable because it almost equaled the damages award.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under CUTPA by reducing the attorney’s fee request primarily because it was nearly proportional to the compensatory damages awarded.
2. Whether CUTPA “reasonable attorney’s fees” must be determined using accepted multi-factor criteria rather than a mechanical fee-to-damages comparison.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Appellate Court held the trial court applied an improper legal standard by effectively capping fees based on proportionality to damages.
- The court ruled that this reliance on a fee–damages ratio constituted an abuse of discretion.
- The attorney’s fee award was vacated and the case remanded for redetermination of a reasonable CUTPA fee using appropriate criteria.
- The judgment on liability and compensatory damages was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- CUTPA permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover “reasonable attorney’s fees,” and reasonableness must be determined by established guidelines rather than a simple comparison between fees and damages.
- There is no per se rule that a fee award must bear a fixed ratio to the amount recovered; the damages amount is only one relevant factor.
- In determining reasonableness, courts should consider recognized multi-factor criteria (including the Johnson factors), such as time and labor, difficulty of the issues, skill required, customary fee, and results obtained.
- A trial court has broad discretion over fee awards, but that discretion is reversible when exercised under an erroneous legal standard.
- Fee-shifting under CUTPA serves remedial and deterrent purposes, including encouraging private enforcement even when damages are modest.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a recalculation of CUTPA attorney’s fees because the trial court treated the relationship between requested fees and damages as a controlling limit, instead of applying the accepted multi-factor inquiry for a reasonable fee.


Steiger v. J.S. Builders, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 32, 663 A.2d 432 (1995)