The law firm that persuaded a judge to invalidate the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District's new storm water service charge has submitted a $2.14 million legal bill to the court, and wants the judge to double it.

In all, the law firm of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale of St. Louis wants more than $4.3 million in fees and $458,523 in expenses from MSD in the class action suit.

MSD called the request astounding and shocking. It says the fees should be about $1.15 million.

The Greensfelder firm last month asked the trial judge, Lincoln County Circuit Judge Dan Dildine, to approve its fees and expenses. Dildine will hold a hearing on the matter Jan. 18. MSD, and ultimately its ratepayers, will be responsible for paying the bill.

The proposed doubling of the fees is a 'success factor," Richard Hardcastle, the lead attorney in the case for Greensfelder, said in an interview.

"We saved the ratepayers $300 million," Hardcastle said.

The $300 million is the amount the district would have received between now and June 30, 2015. That is the last year in the rate schedule MSD had adopted.

The legal costs would be about 1.1 percent of what ratepayers will save, Greensfelder said.

The accounting of fees it submitted to the court covered a period from April 15, 2008, to Oct. 31, 2010. It cited 8,381.5 hours at hourly rates ranging from $120 for a paralegal to $435 for Hardcastle. He billed 1,058.7 hours, for a total of $460,534. The highest total was for lawyer George Uhl. He billed 1,724.3 hours at $345 an hour for a total of $594,883.

The firm also is seeking $54,772 in fees for work on the case since Oct. 31.

MSD told the court the legal fees should be slightly more than $1.15 million and expenses should be $24,418.

The district said it has paid its own attorneys in the case — Kohn, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum of Clayton — $844,780 through Nov. 30.

'REASONABLE' FEES

Greensfelder represented three ratepayers who said in their suit that the new MSD fees needed voter approval under the state's Hancock Amendment. It became a class action suit covering all sewer district customers.

Judge Dildine in July invalidated the new storm water service charge, which based fees on the area of a property that cannot retain water. But the judge declined to require the district to refund the nearly $90.9 million it had collected since March 2008.

Both sides have appealed the Dildine's rulings. MSD stopped collecting the charge, reverting to a previous system of property taxes and a small charge.

The Hancock Amendment also says that a plaintiff who successfully challenges a tax or fee shall receive from "the applicable unit of government his costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in maintaining such suit."

The plaintiffs' brief to Dildine said Missouri judges should follow rulings of the California and Florida supreme courts that allow judges to multiply fees.

The action provides "financial incentives for attorneys enforcing important constitutional rights," the California Supreme Court said in a decision approving the multiplication of attorney's fees. The California court said such multiplication replicates the contingency fees that attorneys often charge in civil cases.

Greensfelder said in its brief that it had to overcome the district's resistance to providing evidence and hire outside experts. Hardcastle, in an interview, said there were "discovery issues that drove the costs higher."

FOUR-DAY TRIAL

MSD said in its response to the court that Greensfelder's request is "unreasonable especially for a trial that lasted only four days, not weeks or months." Some of the fees were excessive, duplicative and unnecessary, the district said.

The district has a staff of four lawyers, a paralegal and an administrative assistant, but MSD said it hired Kohn, Shands because it needed lawyers who specialize in rates, said Lance LeComb, a district spokesman.

Kohn, Shands provided a 20 percent discount on its rates, which MSD said is commonly given to public agencies.

The plaintiffs' lawyers should do the same because "any fee award will affect the level of services provided to the public," the district said.

Hardcastle rejected that argument. He noted that MSD's law firm will be paid regardless of whether it won or lost. "We took this case realizing that payment of our fees would be contingent upon prevailing in the lawsuit," Hardcastle said.

Two years ago, Metro lost a highly publicized three-year legal battle over the Shrewsbury light rail line that cost Metro $27 million in legal fees and settlement costs. Most of the legal fees went to Metro's own law firms.