Whether a settlement in a case covered by statutory fee shifting provisions requires fees to be determined under Blum v. Stenson's prevailing market rate or under contract principles in Johnson v. Georgia Hwy. Exp. Inc.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a settlement in a case covered by statutory fee shifting provisions under terms entitling plaintiffs attorneys to reasonable fees and costs as determined by a judge requires fees to be determined: a) under Blum v. Stenson’s prevailing market rate in the relevant community as opposed to fees determined under contract principles in Johnson v. Georgia Hwy. Exp. Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1979) capping fees at lower hourly rates; and b) with a right to recover fees and costs incurred in order to obtain fees. i RELATED CASES Griffith v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Case No.: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Griffith v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 20-14464, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Opinion entered September 29, 2021. ii