Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mutual Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 (9^th Cir. 2000)-Following Van Gerwen's successful suit under 29 U.S.C.§ 1132, this dispute over attorneys' fees arose after the district court reduced her attorney's award on several grounds—including a 75% reduction based on the "poor quality" of the attorney's work. The district court pointed out that in his response to the defendant's summary judgment motion, her attorney "failed to cite to the administrative record or any other evidentiary material."

The Ninth Court vacated the fee determination since the district court may have erroneously relied on quality of representation both in calculating the lodestar amount and in applying a downward multiplier. The proper method for determining the amount of attorneys' fees in ERISA actions is a hybrid lodestar/multiplier approach. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).

Courts generally consider quality of representation at the lodestar stage in determining what is a reasonable hourly rate. Factoring quality of representation also into the multiplier risks double counting. Here, the district court did not explain whether or to what extent it considered quality of representation when it determined the lodestar amount. However, the fact that it chose $200, an hourly rate at the "at the low end of the range submitted by Van Gerwen," justified an inference that the court may have factored quality into the lodestar.

 However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to award fees for hours spent on discovery unrelated to the record, nor in its mere mention of (rather than reliance on) the existence of a contingency-fee agreement.