In a landmark ruling, the Ninth Circuit has emphatically stated that the size of a law firm should not influence the attorney’s fees awarded after a court victory. This decision came after the small but mighty four-lawyer team at Gaw Poe successfully argued an antitrust case against Prestige Consumer Healthcare concerning discriminatory pricing practices with Costco over eyedrops.

Despite their victory, U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald initially reduced their requested attorney’s fees from over $7.6 million to approximately $3.1 million, citing previous lower rates awarded to the firm and concerns about setting a precedent for future fee petitions.

The Ninth Circuit, however, was not swayed by these arguments. Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr., writing for the court, underscored that attorney’s fees should reflect the skill, experience, and reputation of the lawyers involved, regardless of the firm’s size. He stressed that successful, competent attorneys deserve fair compensation, aligning with their contributions and capabilities.

Randolph Gaw, the founder of Gaw Poe, put it succinctly, emphasizing that the results they achieve are what truly matter, not the physical scale of their practice. He highlighted a recurring irony where larger firms, upon losing to smaller boutiques like his, often argue that their fees should be lower than what they themselves charged and lost.

This decision sends a clear message across the legal landscape: the effectiveness of a law firm's work should not be underestimated or undervalued simply because of its smaller size. It challenges the outdated notion that bigger always means better, reinforcing that in law, as in many areas of life, quality and skill outweigh sheer volume.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling not only vindicates Gaw Poe but also sets a significant precedent that may influence how attorney fees are assessed and awarded in the future, promoting a fairer evaluation based on merit rather than size.