Questioning what is reasonable is standard and common in courtrooms. A simple but expansive question. A guidepost to making decisions.
So it’s quite a blow to Durango resident John Simpson, represented by Pagosa Springs-based attorney Matt Roane, that La Plata County District Judge Suzanne Carlson called the number of research hours claimed in Simpson’s lawsuit against the city regarding unaudited 2022 financial statements “overstated.” Carlson also ruled that hours “to prepare and attend the hearing on attorneys fees are overstated” and “not reasonable.”
The court disallowed 38 hours, which whacked Roane’s requested attorney fees from $29,465 to $17,115, a 42% reduction.
That’s quite the savings for taxpayers.
Within those 38 hours cut by the judge, for “attorneys fees to collect attorneys fees” or “fees on fees” alone, Carlson reduced Roane’s claim of 28.3 hours at $325 per hour by 25 hours to 3.3 hours, a whopping 88.34% reduction. By any measure, Roane’s figures look like gross overcharging.
We return to what is reasonable?
In the judgment, Carlson wrote “the hours needed by Plaintiff to prepare for and attend the hearing on attorney’s fees are overstated as evidenced by the hours expended by Defendant’s attorney.” And “hours expended were not reasonable given the limited scope of the issues and the expertise of Plaintiff’s attorney.”
In the Colorado Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct, “Rule 1.5 - Fees. A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses.” By press time, we couldn’t confirm consequences in violating this rule. At the very least, we imagine professional peers look down on gouging.
Carlson’s logic is right on with Roane’s “expertise,” too. He’s well-practiced, filing similar cases in different places. This body of law is narrow.
From Dec. 19, 2019, through Nov. 22, 2023, Roane filed 100 civil cases, predominantly against school districts, with the most recent one targeting Roaring Folk School District.
We’ve editorialized before about Roane’s niche of law, continually suing public entities in his own name, recovering legal fees and pocketing settlement money. All legal but his efforts strike us as predatory, weaponizing sunshine laws. His go-to settlement figure is $3,250. Given the choice of going to court or paying Roane to go away, most defendants choose the latter.
Of course, in this case, he’s Simpson’s attorney. As expensive as it is for the city to engage Simpson and Roane, we’re glad officials are getting after it and not backing down.
Roane’s intention is clear. He gets richer with no public benefit. But for a local resident, what exactly is Simpson’s? Too murky to see through.
There’s no monetary award in Colorado Open Records Act litigation – only attorneys’ fees are covered. Simpson won an initial court ruling. The case is being appealed. If the city wins in January, no attorney fees will be owed.
But let’s return to the origin of this story – Simpson sued the city for 2022 unaudited financial statements. Draft documents with expected mistakes, before auditors could find and correct errors. All to build a municipal budget that would need to be approved.
Why sue for drafts? To point out miscalculations? Find a smoking gun? As journalists guided by codes of transparency, we would likely find inaccuracies, too. Any citizen would. It’s a better use of our time – and city staff members’ – to first give auditors the task of righting the wrongs.
This situation has moved from Simpson’s requests for records into litigious territory that’s not only unreasonable, it’s unacceptable.
