UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES; CONSUMER PROTECTION;
Connecticut laws/regulations;
February 25, 2003 |
2003-R-0233 | |
AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CASES INVOLVING THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT | ||
| ||
By: Daniel Duffy, Principal Analyst | ||
You asked if courts award punitive damages and attorney’s fees separately in cases involving the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
SUMMARY
CUTPA explicitly authorizes courts to award both punitive damages and attorney’s fees. We analyzed a sample of decisions to determine if the Superior court awards both and the appellate courts upheld the awards. Courts awarded both in 21 of the 45 decisions in our sample in which the consumer prevailed. The decisions were made at all three levels of the judicial system—Superior Court, Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court.
STATUTE
CUTPA allows anyone who has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a prohibited deceptive act or practice to sue to recover actual damages. The court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages and may provide the equitable relief that it deems necessary or proper (CGS § 42-110g(a)).
In addition to the relief provided by CUTPA, the statute authorizes the court to award the plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees based on the work reasonably performed by an attorney and not on the amount of recovery. In any CUTPA suit, the court may, in its discretion and in addition to damages or instead of them, order injunctive or other reasonable relief (CGS § 42-110g(d)).
COURT AWARDS
To discover whether courts awarded both punitive damages and attorney’s fees in CUTPA cases, we conducted a Westlaw search to create a sample of decisions. We searched Connecticut decisions for cases containing paragraphs that contain the words CUTPA and “award” and either “punitive damages” or “attorney’s fees. ” We identified 78 decisions. Of these, 54 were cases decided on the basis of CUTPA. In nine of the 54 cases, the courts found that a CUTPA violation had not occurred. This means that courts had an opportunity to award attorney’s fees in 45 cases in our sample.
We found that courts awarded both attorney’s fees and punitive damages in 21 of the 45 cases. The Connecticut Supreme Court decided three; the Appellate Court decided five; and Superior Court judges decided 13. In general, attorney’s fees are awarded to prevailing consumers. Consumers must present evidence of the amount of the work performed and courts must consider 12 factors to determine what is reasonable. Punitive damages are awarded in cases (1) where the seller’s conduct shows a reckless indifference to the right of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights or (2) under a theory of deterrence.
Supreme Court Decisions
Table 1 displays the nine cases that we identified decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court. In seven, the court’s decision hinged on whether a CUTPA violation had occurred. In three of these cases, the court reversed the lower court and found that a CUTPA violation had occurred. Each time, the court remanded the case for a hearing on whether both attorney’s fees and punitive damages should be awarded.
In the other two cases, the appeal concerned either punitive damages or attorney’s fees. In one, the court did not uphold a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees because the reasonableness of the fees was not proven by an appropriate evidentiary showing, (Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House, 202 Conn. 106). In the final case, the court upheld an award of punitive damages after finding that the award did not abuse the trial court’s discretion (Tessman v. Tiger Lee Construction Co. , 228 Conn. 42).
Table 1: Connecticut Supreme Court Cases | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House, 202 Conn. 106, 520 A. 2d 162, 3 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 122 (Conn. , Jan 20, 1987) (NO. 12655) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not contested Award not upheld, the reasonableness of attorney’s fees was not proven by an appropriate evidentiary showing |
Gargano v. Heyman, 203 Conn. 616, 525 A. 2d 1343 (Conn. , May 26, 1987) (NO. 13084) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Affirmed trial court’s denial of punitive damages because court could not conclude that trial referee abused discretion Affirmed trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees because court could not conclude that trial referee abused discretion |
Eamiello v. Liberty Mobile Homes Sales, Inc. , 208 Conn. 620, 546 A. 2d 805 (Conn. Aug. 16, 1988) (NO. 13310) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award not upheld, CUTPA violation not found Award not upheld, CUTPA violation not found |
Daddona v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc. , 209 Conn. 243, 550 A. 2d 1061 (Conn. , Nov 29, 1988) (NO. 13467) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
CUTPA violation found, remanded to trial court for hearing on whether to award punitive damages CUTPA violation found, remanded to trial court for hearing on whether to award attorney’s fees |
Tessmann v. Tiger Lee Const. Co. , 228 Conn. 42, 634 A. 2d 870 (Conn. , Dec 07, 1993) (NO. 14639) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award upheld because it did not constitute an abuse of trial court’s discretion Not contested |
Table 1: Continued
Table 1: Connecticut Supreme Court Cases | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Woronecki v. Trappe, 228 Conn. 574, 637 A. 2d 783 (Conn. , Feb 22, 1994) (NO. 14754) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
CUTPA violation found, remanded to trial court to determine the amount of damages CUTPA violation found, remanded to trial court to consider whether to award attorney’s fees |
Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen, 232 Conn. 480, 656 A. 2d 1009 (Conn. , Apr 4, 1995) (NO. 14941) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Reversed trial court by finding that a CUTPA violation occurred. Remanded for hearing on whether to award punitive damages Reversed trial court by finding that a CUTPA violation occurred. Remanded for hearing on whether to award punitive damages |
Saturn Const. Co. , Inc. v. Premier Roofing Co. , Inc. , 238 Conn. 293, 680 A. 2d 1274 (Conn. , Jul 30, 1996) (NO. 15386) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not contested Award upheld, CUTPA violation found |
Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp. , 245 Conn. 1, 717 A. 2d 77 (Conn. , Jun 02, 1998) (NO. 15755) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award upheld, CUTPA violation found Award upheld, CUTPA violation found |
Appellate Court Decisions
Table 2 displays the 14 cases that we identified decided by the Connecticut Appellate Court. In four cases, the court decided that a CUTPA violation had not occurred and, therefore, did not award damages or attorney’s fees.
In five cases, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to award both punitive damages and attorney’s fees. In the other five cases, the court was asked to consider the award of either punitive damages or attorney’s fees, but not both.
Table 2: Connecticut Appellate Court Cases | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Roy v. Stephen Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc. , 15 Conn. App. 101, 543 A. 2d 775, 7 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 1507 (Conn. App. , Jul 05, 1988) (NO. 6036) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Upheld trial court’s decision not to award because no CUTPA violation was found Upheld trial court’s decision not to award because no CUTPA violation was found |
Lembo v. Schlesinger, 15 Conn. App. 150, 543 A. 2d 780 (Conn. App. , Jul 12, 1988) (NO. 5592) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award not upheld because CUTPA violation was not found on appeal Award not upheld because CUTPA violation was not found on appeal |
Freeman v. Alamo Management Co. , 24 Conn. App. 124, 586 A. 2d 619 (Conn. App. , Feb 12, 1991) (NO. 9006) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not contested Award upheld, it is not necessary for a court to award damages in order to award attorney’s fees |
Martin v. Samulis, 24 Conn. App. 85, 585 A. 2d 1255 (Conn. App. , Feb 12, 1991) (NO. 8813) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award upheld Award upheld |
Vezina v. Nautilus Pools, Inc. , 27 Conn. App. 810, 610 A. 2d 1312 (Conn. App. , Jun 16, 1992) (NO. 10314) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Upheld trial court’s decision not to award because no CUTPA violation was found Upheld trial court’s decision not to award because no CUTPA violation was found |
Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133, 628 A. 2d 25 (Conn. App. , Jul 20, 1993) (NO. 11371) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Upheld trial court’s award. Absence of any finding other than “wrongful conduct” does not invalidate court’s conclusion. Not contested |
Staehle v. Michael's Garage, Inc. , 35 Conn. App. 455, 646 A. 2d 888 (Conn. App. , Aug 16, 1994) (NO. 12833) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award upheld, trial court’s method of awarding punitive damages, making them equal to actual damages, was not an abuse of discretion. Award upheld, trial court’s award of only partial attorney’s fees was permissible on the basis of its implied finding that the fees awarded were reasonable |
Table 2: Continued
Table 2: Connecticut Appellate Court Cases | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 42 Conn. App. 124, 679 A. 2d 27 (Conn. App. , Jul 09, 1996) (NO. 14052) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not considered Reversed trial court, remanded for hearing on whether to award |
Lawson v. Whitey's Frame Shop, 42 Conn. App. 599, 682 A. 2d 1016 (Conn. App. , Aug 20, 1996) (NO. 14394, 14833) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award upheld, trial court did not abuse its discretion in making a relatively small award Award upheld, trial court’s exercise of its discretion to award attorney’s fees will not be interfered with unless abuse is manifest or it appears that injustice has been done |
Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 720 A. 2d 242 (Conn. App. , Nov 03, 1998) (NO. AC 16742) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not considered by Appellate Court Award upheld, trial court properly considered 12 factors established in Steiger |
Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 57 Conn. App. 189, 752 A. 2d 1098 (Conn. App. , Apr 04, 2000) (NO. AC 18371) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not considered by Appellate Court Award upheld, trial court properly considered 12 factors established in Steiger |
Riggio v. Orkin Exterminating Co. , Inc. , 58 Conn. App. 309, 753 A. 2d 423 (Conn. App. , Jun 20, 2000) (NO. AC 18910) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded by trial court or challenged Award upheld, trial court properly considered 12 factors established in Steiger |
Kronberg Bros. , Inc. v. Steele, 72 Conn. App. 53, 804 A. 2d 239 (Conn. App. , Sep 03, 2002) (NO. 21475) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award upheld, plaintiff objections were not raised in original brief Award upheld, plaintiff objections were not raised in original brief |
Table 2: Continued
Table 2: Connecticut Appellate Court Cases | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Tanpiengco v. Tasto, 72 Conn. App. 817, 806 A. 2d 1080 (Conn. App. , Oct 08, 2002) (NO. 22350) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Award upheld, the court upheld trial court’s award of punitive damages because the plaintiff (1) established that conduct was an unfair trade practice and (2) presented reasonable evidence of damage suffered Award upheld, the court found that awarding punitive damages and attorney’s fees is discretionary under CUTPA and the discretion will not ordinarily be interfered with unless there is manifest or unjust abuse of discretion |
Superior Court Decisions
Table 3 displays the 30 cases that we identified decided in Superior Court. The prevailing plaintiff was awarded both punitive damages and attorney’s fees 13 times, punitive damages only one time, and attorney’s fees only six times.
Table 3: Superior Court Decisions | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Phen v. Sinescalco, 1984 WL 255661 (Conn. Super. , Jul 13, 1984) (NO. CVH-8304-1087) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, for violating CUTPA Awarded, based on “work reasonably performed” |
Hernandez v. Monterey Village Associates Ltd. Partnership, 1987 WL 349022 (Conn. Super. , Jul 15, 1987) (NO. CVNO 8506 484) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not requested Not awarded because case was settled before court found a violation of CUTPA |
Eamiello v. Liberty Mobilehome Sales, Inc. , 1987 WL 349041 (Conn. Super. , Aug 31, 1987) (NO. CVWA 8503-1777) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, for deterrence Awarded, for work reasonably performed |
Table 3: Continued
Table 3: Superior Court Decisions | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Milano v. Catania, 1990 WL 614605 (Conn. Super. , Feb 07, 1990) (NO. CVNH 8902-3028) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, for “reckless indifference to the rights of others…” Awarded, perhaps considered as part of the decision to award punitive damages |
Barnes v. Holliday, 1990 WL 269884 (Conn. Super. , Jun 06, 1990) (NO. 09 26 95) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, for “reckless indifference to the rights of others…” Awarded, perhaps as part of punitive damages |
Reed v. Cirasuolo, 1991 WL 28839 (Conn. Super. , Jan 31, 1991) (NO. 27 57 74) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no finding of a CUTPA violation Not awarded, no finding of a CUTPA violation |
Hines v. Westfield Inc. , 1991 WL 71422 (Conn. Super. , Apr 24, 1991) (NO. CV-88-0251120 S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no finding of a CUTPA violation Not awarded, no finding of a CUTPA violation |
Amendola v. Giammattei, 1991 WL 107830 (Conn. Super. , Jun 04, 1991) (NO. CV 87 0260230 S, CV 87 0260235 S, CV 87 0260234 S, CV 87 0260232 S, CV 87 0260236 S, CV 87 0260274 S, CV 87 0260231 S, 27 84 81, 26 02 33) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no reckless indifference Awarded, after a finding of a CUTPA violation, “plaintiffs are entitled to costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees. ” |
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc. v. DiMartino, 1991 WL 127094 (Conn. Super. , Jul 02, 1991) (NO. 30 06 42) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, reckless indifference Awarded, “BC & BS “is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. ” |
Vitano, Inc. v. Townline Associates, 1991 WL 151893 (Conn. Super. , Aug. 2, 1991) (NO. CV89 02 81 36S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not sought Awarded, CUTPA violation found |
Gaylord v. Mosher, 1991 WL 253709 (Conn. Super. , Sep 26, 1991) (NO. CV-NO-9105-2030) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, no reason given Awarded, “[t]he purpose of awarding attorney’s fees is to encourage private enforcement of the act. ” |
Table 3: Continued
Table 3: Superior Court Decisions | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Salomonson v. Billistics, Inc. , 1991 WL 204385 (Conn. Super. , Sep 27, 1991) (NO. CV-88-508292) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded under CUTPA for failing to fulfill a duty imposed by a federal law Awarded because under CUTPA, “an award of both attorney’s fees and punitive damages …may be made. ” |
Peets v. Define, 1992 WL 175112 (Conn. Super. , Jul 21, 1992) (NO. 30 73 04) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, for “reckless indifference to the rights of others…” Awarded, because court found a violation of CUTPA and a breach of public policy |
Ebron v. Goodman, 1992 WL 189352 (Conn. Super. , Jul 29, 1992) (NO. CV90 274482S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no relevant evidence presented Not awarded, no evidence presented concerning attorney’s fees |
Lenz v. CNA Assurance Co. , (42 Conn. Supp. 514, 630 A. 2d 1082) (NO. 28737S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, based on authority to award damages under CUTPA to deter future violations Not sought |
Raven Corp. v. Baldwin-Stewart Elec. Co. , 1993 WL 284908 (Conn. Super. , Jul 23, 1993) (NO. 247648) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded. “The court has no difficulty in awarding both attorney’s fees and punitive damages…. ” Awarded |
Birney v. Barretta, 1993 WL 307685 (Conn. Super. , Jul 26, 1993) (NO. CV NH-5079) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, finding of reckless indifference Awarded, based on reasonable work performed |
Guty v. Antonino, 1993 WL 307612 (Conn. Super. , Aug 09, 1993) (NO. 97369) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no finding of reckless indifference Awarded, based on work performed |
D. W. Van Dyke & Co. , Inc. v. Riverside Plaza, Inc. , 1993 WL 524956 (Conn. Super. , Dec 09, 1993) (NO. CV89 0101367) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no finding of reckless indifference Not awarded, no finding of a CUTPA violation |
Table 3: Continued
Table 3: Superior Court Decisions | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Weigert v. Windsor Locks Savings and Loan Association, (Conn. Super. , Dec. 13, 1993) (NO. CV 91111-4066S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, punitive damages were awarded relating to an entry and detainer count Awarded, because court found a violation of CUTPA |
Centore v. Smith, 1994 WL 235359 (Conn. Super. , May 23, 1994) (NO. CV92 0122082) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no finding of reckless indifference Not awarded, no reason given |
Maythem v. Winer, 1994 WL 260832 (Conn. Super. , Jun 07, 1994) (NO. 112053) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, because the court did not believe they were required in this case Awarded |
Renz v. Milano Development, 1994 WL 591713 (Conn. Super. , Oct 19, 1994) (NO. CV94 0361546) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no finding of a CUTPA violation Not awarded, no finding of a CUTPA violation |
Russo v. Bonavita, 1994 WL 702916 (Conn. Super. , Dec 01, 1994) (NO. 90 380984) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, finding of reckless indifference Awarded, based on work performed |
American Rental Centers v. Gogulski, 1994 WL 702944 (Conn. Super. , Dec 05, 1994) (NO. CV90 0373794S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, finding of reckless indifference Awarded, based on work performed |
Shay v. Gallagher, 1995 WL 31026 (Conn. Super. , Jan 18, 1995) (NO. CV 93-0302341) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, no finding of reckless indifference, no reason to impose based on a theory of deterrence Not awarded, because (1) the defendant’s CUTPA claim was asserted as a counterclaim and the incentive of attorney’s fees was not necessary and (2) defendant did not present evidence of attorney’s fees |
Table 3: Continued
Table 3: Superior Court Decisions | ||
Cases |
Awards | |
Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen, 1995 WL 333152 (Conn. Super. , May 26, 1995) (NO. CV 89-0282046-S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, defendant’s conduct was not outrageous and there was no need to deter such conduct in the future Not award, pertinent evidence not presented |
Hernandez v. King, 1996 WL 57006 (Conn. Super. , Jan 29, 1996) (NO. CV 940536321S) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, premature request because court was ruling on defendant’s motion to strike Not awarded, premature request because court was ruling on defendant’s motion to strike |
Lawson v. Whitey's Frame Shop, 42 Conn. App. 599, 682 A. 2d 1016 (Conn. App. , Aug 20, 1996) (NO. 14394, 14833) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Not awarded, damages awarded under other law Awarded, based on work performed |
Ensign-Bickford Realty Corp. v. Hop Brook Corp. , 1996 WL 694100 (Conn. Super. , Nov 26, 1996) (NO. CVH 5363) |
Punitive Damages: Attorney’s Fees: |
Awarded, based on court’s finding that defendant’s actions violated public policy Awarded, based on work performed |
AWARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
The courts have distinguished between the award of punitive damages and attorney’s fees under CUTPA and the award under common law. “The award of attorney’s fees and punitive damages under CUTPA has some features not common to such awards in other types of cases. For example, the trial court is not precluded from exercising this discretion even if it finds that the plaintiff has not suffered ascertainable damages” (Jacques All Trades Corporation v. Brown, 42 Conn. App. 124, 131).
In Gargano v. Heyman, the court wrote that “[a]warding punitive damages and attorney’s fees under CUTPA is discretionary…and the exercise of such discretion will not ordinarily be interfered with on appeal unless the abuse is manifest or injustice appears to have been done. ” (Gargano v. Heyman, 203 Conn. 616, 621). It then applied a standard that antedates CUTPA to awarding punitive damages under CUTPA. It wrote that “[I]n order to award punitive or exemplary damages, evidence must reveal a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights. In fact, the flavor of the basic requirement to justify an award of punitive damages is described in terms of wanton and malicious injury, evil motive and violence” (Gargano, 621). The court based its reasoning on Collens v. New Canaan Water Co. (155 Conn. 477). In Collens, decided in 1967, the court wrote, “Punitive damages… are awarded when the evidence shows a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights. ”
Courts have also awarded punitive damages based on a theory of deterrence. In a Superior Court case, a judge stated, “The equivalent of common law punitive damages was provided for in General Statutes 42-110g(d), which allows an award of costs and attorney’s fees. The legislature departed from the narrow scope of common law punitive damages, however, when it adopted 42-110g(a) of CUTPA, which provides that the “court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages…as it deems necessary or proper. ” This statutory provision allows for punitive damages based on a theory of deterrence, whereas the common law premise of such an award is compensation” (Lenz v. CNA Assurance 42 Conn. Supp. 514, 515 (1993)).
This reasoning is in accord with an earlier (1982) federal court decision based on CUTPA. “A court is … free, under § 42-110g, to assess punitive damages should it feel that a measure of deterrence is in order” (Bailey Employment System, Inc. , v. Hahn, 545 F. Supp. 62, 73). After considering the defendant Bailey’s routine business practices, the court found that “punitive damages, which hopefully will serve as a deterrent to the kinds of unfair and deceptive act is practiced by Bailey, should be assessed” (Bailey, 73).
AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
The courts have recognized a plaintiff’s ability to recover both attorney’s fees and punitive damages. The Supreme Court has held: “The plaintiff who establishes CUTPA liability has access to a remedy far more comprehensive than the simple damages recoverable under common law. The ability to recover both attorneys’ fees…and punitive damages…enhances the private CUTPA remedy and serves to encourage private CUTPA litigation. The legislative history…demonstrates that CUTPA seeks to create a climate in which private litigants help to enforce the ban on unfair or deceptive trade practices or acts (Hinchcliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 608). The Appellate Court has stated: “The policy behind CUTPA is to encourage litigants to act as private attorneys general and to bring actions for unfair or deceptive trade practices. To effectuate that policy, the legislature encourages attorneys to accept and litigate CUTPA cases by providing, in General Statutes §. 42-110g(d), for awards of attorney’s fees and costs. (Hernandez v. Monterey Village Associates Limited Partnership, 17 Conn. App. 421, 425).
The Appellate Court adopted the standard for determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees used by federal courts in cases decided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The standard requires courts to consider 12 factors: (1) time and labor required; (2) novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) skill required to perform legal service properly, (4) preclusion of other employment by the attorney; (5) customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limits imposed by the client; (8) amount involved and results obtained; (9) attorney’s reputation, ability, and experience; (10) “undesirability” of the case; (11) nature of professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases (Steiger v. J. S. Builders, Inc. , 39 Conn. App. 32, 38).
DD: ts