 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Metevier2/21/2001
the customary fees in the area, the extent to which the attorney prevailed, and the benefit thereby bestowed on his clients." Id. at 683 (quotation omitted). Here, the board's determination does not reflect a careful consideration of the relevant factors for determining reasonable attorney's fees. Seppala & Aho Constr. Co. v. Elton, 119 N.H. 634, 636 (1979). Specifically, the board's decision appears to ignore Attorney Townsend's more than twenty-five years of legal experience and relevant experience in workers' compensation cases.
AIG asserts that our enunciated factors for the determination of reasonable attorney's fees are not mandatory, but only guides, and thus, the board need not mention each factor in its decision. To the contrary, the board should consider the attorney's standing and the skill employed and should so indicate in its decision. See Doucet, 133 N.H. at 683. If the board fails to consider an attorney's experience, experienced attorneys may be discouraged from representing claimants in the workers' compensation arena. This would undermine the compensatory purpose of the Workers' Compensation Law. See Appeal of Brown, 143 N.H. 112, 119 (1998).
The petitioner further argues that the board committed error by relying upon an unpublished range of approved rates because it lacks the authority to set a range of rates. The authority to adopt " scale of legal fees" lies with the commissioner of the department of labor and not with the board. See RSA 281-A:60, I(f) (Supp. 2000). Based upon the record, it does not appear that the commissioner adopted such a scale of legal fees and our review of the applicable regulations did not reveal such a scale. Thus, it was error for the board to rely upon a "range of approved rates" when the commissioner has not adopted such a range.
Accordingly, we vacate the award of fees and remand for re- computation of the attorney's fees in a manner consistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
BRODERICK and NADEAU, JJ., concurred; HORTON, J., retired, and GROFF, J., superior court justice, specially assigned under RSA 490:3, concurred.
|