We previously reported on the dispute between AECOM and Exxon over work performed at Exxon’s refinery in Montana. AECOM claimed it was owed roughly $100 million for extra work performed during a plant turnaround in 2019 that lasted 17 weeks instead of seven weeks as planned. Exxon disputed that it owed additional money and counterclaimed for nearly $100 million. That case tried to a jury last January, and the jury returned a verdict for $64 million in favor of AECOM on its extra work and lien claims, and for $20 million against AECOM on Exxon’s breach-of-contract counterclaim. The court denied the parties’ motions to alter or amend the verdict and entered final judgment in AECOM’s favor in the net amount of $44 million. AECOM then moved for the court to award it attorneys’ fees of over $12 million, expert fees of $5 million, and e-discovery costs of $1 million incurred over five years of litigation. 

The court ruled on AECOM’s fee application last week. The court applied the commonly used “lodestar method” of multiplying the hours expended by an appropriate hourly rate in the community for such work, then adjusting that amount based on other factors, such as the required professional skill and experience and the result achieved. The court noted that its goal was to achieve rough justice, not auditing perfection. As the U.S. Supreme Court has previously recognized, “trial courts need not… become green-eyeshade accountants.” The court found that the hours and rates charged by AECOM’s lawyers were reasonable given the complexity of the issues involved and the unavailability of in-state counsel with similar experience. The court nonetheless reduced the fee award to reflect AECOM’s partial success. Because AECOM’s net recovery was 43% of the amount sought, the court awarded AECOM 43% of its attorneys’ fees or $5.2 million. 

The court declined to award AECOM its expert fees and e-discovery costs. Under the Montana lien statute, only attorneys’ fees were recoverable. The Montana Prompt Payment Act does allow for shifting of costs, too, however AECOM did not prevail on its PPA claim. Thus, under the American Rule, the court declined to shift AECOM’s expert fees and e-discovery costs to Exxon. A copy of the court’s opinion is available here.