Attorney fees; Appointed appellate counsel; Reasonable compensation; MCL 775.16; In re Foster Attorney Fees; Individualized determination; In re Recorder’s Court Bar Ass’n; In re Jamnik; Fee reduction; Evidentiary basis; Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System (MAACS)

The court held that remand was required because the trial court did not adequately explain the evidentiary and legal basis for reducing appointed appellate counsel’s requested fees. Appellant was appointed to represent a defendant in a plea appeal and sought MAACS compensation for work on a motion to withdraw the plea and an application for leave to appeal. The trial court reduced both requests, finding the hours unreasonable and noting that the matter did not involve “novel or complex issues.” On appeal, the court recognized that appointed counsel are entitled to “reasonable compensation,” and that under In re Foster Attorney Fees and In re Recorder’s Court Bar Ass’n, the trial court must make an “individualized determination of reasonable compensation.” Although the trial court purported to do so, and although its conclusion that the case lacked novel or complex issues was relevant, the court held that this did not eliminate the need for “a transparent and evidence-based methodology.” The trial court failed to identify any factual or legal basis for its views about how many hours were reasonable for the motion, client visits, or leave application. Without “empirical data,” such as analogous billing records, expert testimony, or relevant fee standards, the record did not permit meaningful appellate review. Remanded for a comprehensive explanation “of the evidentiary and legal foundations” for any reasonable-fee findings.