The
Laffey Matrix originated in
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), reversed, 746
F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), overruled,
Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (
en banc). Counsel in the
Laffey case compiled
evidence from
firms showing the
market rates in the
District of Columbia for complex federal
litigation. That evidence was analyzed and a matrix of rates for attorneys at various experience levels was created, later becoming known as the
Laffey Matrix. Based on
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984), the district court in
Laffey adopted the matrix and expressly rejected the use of the size or type of the law firm in setting hourly rates.
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., supra, 572 F. Supp. at 374. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit rejected use of the matrix in favor of the firm's actual billing rate, thus restricting fee awards to small firms, such as the counsel in
Laffey, to their own reduced billing rates.
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, supra, 746 F.2d at 24–25. Four years later, in
Save Our Cumberland Mountains, the D.C. Circuit sitting
en banc overruled the
Laffey decision (857 F.2d at 1524) stating:
Congress did not intend the private but public-spirited rate-cutting attorney to be penalized for his public spiritedness by being paid on a lower scale than either his higher priced fellow
barrister from a more established firm or his salaried neighbor at a legal services clinic. In short, we conclude that our prior decision in
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., and the panel decision in this case, which it compelled, are both inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in
Blum v. Stenson which construed those statutes. We therefore expressly overrule
Laffey to the extent that it imposes the above discussed different method of determining reasonable
attorney fees on attorneys situated as Yablonski and Galloway are here. Henceforth, the prevailing market rate method heretofore used in awarding fees to traditional for-profit firms and public interest legal services organizations shall apply as well to those attorneys who practice privately and for profit but at reduced rates reflecting non-
economic goals. The original
Laffey Matrix provided market rates for the period from June 1, 1981, through May 31, 1982, based on different levels of experience. At the urging of the D.C. Circuit in its
en banc decision in
Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, supra, 857 F.2d at 1525, the matrix was updated through May 31, 1989, in connection with a settlement reached on remand in that case.
See, e.g., Trout v. Ball, 705 F. Supp. 705, 709, n. 10 (D.D.C. 1989)(the updated matrix developed in
Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel “does provide an updated and accurate schedule of attorney fees in this District”). The applicant for a fee award must establish the prevailing market rates. To establish the prevailing market rates in the District of Columbia, the applicant "may point to such evidence as an updated version of the
Laffey Matrix or the U.S. Attorney’s Office matrix, or their own survey of prevailing market rates in the community."
Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Fee applicants often point to the
Laffey Matrix. Over the years, two methods of adjusting the
Laffey Matrix for the passage of time have developed: the
U.S. Attorney's Office
Laffey Matrix and the Legal Service Index-Adjusted
Laffey Matrix. These methods produced different hourly rates due to the use of different inflation metrics. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia also developed a new matrix in 2015, but it was rejected by the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit. ==U.S. Attorney's Office
Laffey Matrix==