Cite as 351 Ark. 31 (2002)
mony of two attorneys) × 3.877 (multiplier court stated was reasonable based upon length of litigation, difficulty, and contingent nature of success).
February, 1998—June 18, 2000
award: $525,000.
calculation: attorneys estimated 4500-5500 hours of work and requested no particular rate. The court reduced the hours to 3500 and used the $150 per hour rate.
June 19, 2000—November 1, 2000
Attorneys kept contemporaneous work records for this period, per the trial court's order.
award: $313,035.
calculation: 2,086.90 hours × $150 per hour.
Total Award: $9,338,035
At the outset, we must admit to some concern about the lack of time records for the number of hours claimed to have been worked in this case for the liability phase. The trial court found, however, that no one disputed the 15,000 hours claimed, and Lake View attested to the total hours by affidavit. The State, in its brief on appeal, merely questions the total hours worked in a footnote. Accordingly, we will accept 15,000 as the hours worked in the liability phase, as found by the trial court.
We disagree with Lake View, however, in two respects. It is virtually impossible to fix precisely what the economic benefit to the state has been as a result of counsels' efforts. To be sure, there has been an economic benefit to the State, as this court acknowledged in Lake View II. But just what that exact benefit might be is fodder for speculation. $130 million was simply the amount agreed to by opposing counsel in an effort to settle the case and to decide upon appropriate attorneys' fees for Lake View counsel.
Our second disagreement concerns the propriety of arguing caselaw involving fees awarded in class-action lawsuits involving a corporation or an illegal-exaction issue as precedent for a fee award in a school-funding case, where taxpayer money will be
