Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Sixth Circuit affirmed the attorney's fee award in all respects except for the hourly rates applied to class counsel other than the specialized lead firm, vacating that portion and remanding for application of local forum rates.
Standard: Hensley lodestar analysis
Vote: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Practical effect: The decision clarifies that while related claims can support a fee award for overlapping work, district courts must strictly justify departures from local market rates when awarding fees to out-of-area counsel who were not the primary specialists in the litigation.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court's award of attorney's fees to a class of borrowers who prevailed on a Truth in Lending Act claim against Fifth Third Bank. The court vacated the portion of the award applying national market rates to all counsel, requiring a remand to apply local forum rates for attorneys other than the specialized lead firm.

Background

A class of borrowers sued Fifth Third Bank for failing to properly disclose the annual percentage rate for short-term loans offered through an Early Access program. The class prevailed on a Truth in Lending Act claim but lost on a breach of contract claim. The district court awarded the class approximately three point three million dollars in attorney’s fees, applying national market rates to all counsel.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the Hensley standard for calculating attorney’s fees, determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the claims related or in assessing the class’s success. However, the court found an abuse of discretion regarding the hourly rates applied to counsel other than the specialized lead firm, Tycko. The court held that the district court failed to provide a specific showing of necessity to depart from the prevailing local market rates in the Southern District of Ohio.

We affirm the district court’s calculation of the fee award in all respects save for the rates applied to firms other than Tycko. We thus vacate the award and remand for the district court to apply the proper forum rates.

Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 25-3258 (6th Cir. Jun. 04, 2026)

What it means going forward

The decision clarifies that while related claims can support a fee award for overlapping work, district courts must strictly justify departures from local market rates when awarding fees to out-of-area counsel who were not the primary specialists in the litigation.