A Laffey-based matrix rebuilt from original inputs, adjusted using each year’s published federal locality pay.
June 2016–May 2027 · Original experience bands · USD per hour
| Rate period | 1st–3rd | 4th–7th | 8th–10th | 11th–19th | 20th+ | Paralegal / clerk |
|---|
These are reproducible calculations, not verbatim LaffeyMatrix.com rows or government-approved local billing rates. Calendar-year locality inputs apply to the rate period beginning that June.
Same formula and rounding policy across every year
Annual calculations, not observations of local law-firm billing. Exact values appear in the matrix above.
Choose Laffey, a licensed Real Rate Report figure, another guide, or a case-specific court rate. Manual figures require a period and source citation. No Laffey inflation or locality adjustment is applied to alternative rates. Entries stay in this browser.
| Rate guide | Period | Experience / role | Hours | Rate / hour | Subtotal |
|---|
Sum of hours × rounded hourly rates. No interest, expenses, multiplier, or court reductions included.
For Laffey only, “2026” means June 1, 2026 through May 31, 2027. Work before June 1 belongs to the preceding rate year. Split a row if the rate year or experience band changes.
Select the band applicable when the work was performed. The first band includes an attorney’s first year after graduation; “20th year+” begins with the 20th practice year. This tool does not decide whether a court should use current or historical rates.
Real Rate Report and other guides retain their own time periods, market, role, and percentile. Enter those details with your citation. The court option reproduces one named attorney’s approved rates; it is not a general market schedule.
Real Rate Report publisher ↗ · Clio state-rate guide ↗A guided chat assembles your answers into an editable declaration draft. It is a browser-only drafting aid, not a live AI chat. It does not verify facts, invent expertise, or decide whether rates are reasonable.
Skip an answer to leave a bracketed placeholder. Answers are held in memory only and disappear when the page is closed or reloaded.
This copies the current worksheet into the draft as proposed amounts, not as proof of reasonableness.
Actual filed examples from Stiner v. Brookdale, N.D. Cal., August 7, 2025. These Bay Area examples illustrate drafting structure; they are not local rate findings for other cities.
Examples illustrate structure and support. Do not copy another declarant’s experience or testimony as your own.
Brackets mark required facts or opinions that have not been supplied. The knowledgeable declarant must review the complete draft and choose the appropriate attestation before signing.
Regenerating replaces edits in this box. No signature, execution date, or statement under penalty of perjury is supplied automatically.
Displayed values are rounded to two decimals. Calculations and downloadable source inputs retain full precision.
20th+: $265; 11th–19th: $220; 8th–10th: $195; 4th–7th: $135; 1st–3rd: $110; paralegal/clerk: $60. The publisher identifies these as the 1989 update to D.C. Laffey rates.
Publisher PDF, page 1 and footnotes ↗June 1988 legal-services CPI is 107.10. For 2016–2021, divide the selected June CPI by 107.10. This equals compounding the publisher’s annual June-to-June factors without intermediate rounding.
For 2022 and 2023 use the average of May and July CPI, because June was absent. From 2024, multiply the 2023 CPI factor by June current-year Offices of Lawyers PPI divided by June 2023 PPI (270.42).
2016–21: Iᵧ = June CPIᵧ / 107.10
2022–23: Iᵧ = mean(May CPIᵧ, July CPIᵧ) / 107.10
2024–26: Iᵧ = (mean(May/July 2023 CPI) / 107.10) × (June PPIᵧ / June 2023 PPI)Gᵧ = (100 + city locality %ᵧ) /
(100 + Washington–Baltimore locality %ᵧ)
Rateᵧ,band = round(base_band × Iᵧ × Gᵧ)Use published locality percentages, not capped GS salaries. Preserve all precision until the final hourly rate; round positive half-dollar ties upward. Each rate period uses the calendar-year locality table for its June starting year.
This comparison is a check, not the input to city rates.
| Band | Rebuilt | Published |
|---|
The BLS inflation series and OPM locality percentages are official published inputs. The combined attorney rates are our application of those inputs. The Laffey publisher does not publish these seven city matrices, and OPM does not approve attorney fee awards. Locality pay is a labor-pay measure, not a cost-of-living index.
The geographic ratio is separate from the publisher’s inflation method. In re HPL Technologies, 366 F. Supp. 2d 912, 921–22 & n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2005), illustrates a locality-ratio adjustment using the older USAO table. That does not establish court acceptance of this reconstruction, today’s LSI rates, or any particular local rate. No interest calculation is part of this model.
Appellate principles are not evidence of a specific local billing rate. The authorities below do not approve this website’s geographic formula.
Requires a reasoned assessment of common-fund fees, including the fund, beneficiaries, objections, counsel’s skill, complexity, risk, time, and comparable awards. The fee ruling was vacated and remanded, not an approval of a requested percentage.
Read the authority ↗Illustrative decisions, not a survey of acceptance rates. This national reference chart stays the same across city pages; the Case Law tab contains the selected locality’s library. LSI, older USAO tables, and Lodestar Rates’s reconstruction are distinct.
| Type of case | Forum & authority | Treatment of Laffey | What the decision supports |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOIA | Bay Area · N.D. Cal. U.S. Right to Know (2025), ECF 50, pp. 16–18 | Considered with other evidence | Laffey served as one data point with local expert evidence and comparable awards. |
| Civil rights · § 1983 | Chicago · N.D. Ill. Fulton (2026), ECF 594, pp. 6–13 | Considered with other evidence | Laffey and Fitzpatrick supported rates alongside market evidence, qualifications and declarations; the court did not adopt an automatic grid. |
| Clean Water Act citizen suit | Bay Area · N.D. Cal. S.F. Baykeeper (2011), ECF 174, pp. 10–13 | Current matrix-informed rates | Accepted requested 2011–12 rates for earlier work with local and specialization evidence. Interim fee total was separately reduced for partial success. |
| Environmental · TSCA | Bay Area · N.D. Cal. Food & Water Watch (2026), ECF 503, pp. 5–7 | Different guide selected | Court chose San Francisco Real Rate Report evidence instead of the proposed adjusted Laffey schedule. |
| Immigration · EAJA | Philadelphia–Tacoma · W.D. Wash. Koonwaiyou (2024), ECF 51, pp. 14–16 | Laffey rejected | Court relied on practitioner evidence and judicial experience. EAJA enhanced-rate eligibility is a separate issue. |
| Copyright · default judgment | New York · S.D.N.Y. Martinka (2025), ECF 23, pp. 17–19 & n.7 | Laffey rejected | The D.C. complex-litigation matrix did not justify the higher requested rates for this New York copyright work. |
| Wage-and-hour · common fund | Bay Area · N.D. Cal. Martin v. FedEx (2008), ECF 72, pp. 12–16 | USAO matrix used in cross-check | OPM-adjusted 2007–08 USAO rates yielded a 1.48 implied multiplier at preliminary approval. This was not a final fee award. |
| Wage-and-hour · common fund | Bay Area · N.D. Cal. Toledo (2026), ECF 80, pp. 10–11 | Laffey unhelpful on local rates | Court reduced senior rates and relied on relevant local comparisons. The same broad case type can yield a different treatment. |
| D.C. wage statutes / companion FLSA | D.C. · outside these metro pages Sanchez Sanchez (2025), ECF 67, pp. 5–8 | Current LSI required by local statute | D.C. wage law required rates current at determination. This is not a nationwide FLSA rule. |
| Title VII employment | D.C. · outside these metro pages Craig (2016), ECF 168, pp. 8–10 & n.6 | Current USAO rate used | Applied a current USAO rate to work from 2011–16, with supporting affidavits and no dispute on timing; not an LSI holding. |
| California anti-SLAPP | Los Angeles · C.D. Cal. Alvarez (2025), ECF 80, p. 6 n.4; pp. 9–10 | Laffey and enhancement rejected | Local rate evidence supported a fee award, but Laffey was declined and a 1.5 multiplier was denied. |
| Civil rights · § 1983 | Sacramento · E.D. Cal. White (2026), ECF 191, pp. 6–14 | Adjusted Laffey rejected | A Sacramento-reduced matrix was not accepted as the starting point; the court examined local awards and individual qualifications. |
A favorable treatment is tied to the fee statute, forum, evidence, work and stage of the particular case. Rejection of a matrix does not mean no fees were awarded. No decision shown adopts all 15 Lodestar Rates matrices.
Three separate questions: which hourly rate is reasonable, whether delay should be compensated, and whether a further enhancement is permitted. Choosing Laffey does not answer the other two.
Courts may compensate for delayed payment using current reasonable rates or historical fees adjusted to present value. This is separate from choosing an appropriate rate guide. Today’s Laffey figure still needs support in the relevant market and type of case.
491 U.S. 274, 282–84 (1989). Recognizes current rates or an appropriate adjustment to historical fees as ways to compensate for delay.
Read opinion ↗559 U.S. 542, 554–56 (2010). Ordinary delay can be reflected through current rates or present-value adjustments. A further enhancement for exceptional delay needs specific proof and an objective calculation; avoid counting the same delay twice.
Read opinion ↗812 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2016). In common-fund cases, counsel must be compensated for delay. The court may apply current rates to earlier work or historical rates with a prime-rate enhancement, and must explain its approach. This is Ninth Circuit common-fund authority, not a nationwide interest mandate.
Read opinion ↗478 U.S. 310, 314–23 (1986). The federal no-interest rule generally bars delay compensation without an applicable statutory waiver. Calling the amount an inflation or delay adjustment does not avoid that rule. Congress later expressly allowed delay interest in federal employment cases under Title VII; examine the actual fee statute.
Read opinion ↗ · 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(d) ↗The calculator currently reports the selected hourly rates × hours. It does not add delay compensation, interest, or a multiplier. Postjudgment interest is a separate question governed by the judgment and applicable law.
Matrix: 2011–2012 Laffey-informed rates, with local adjustment and other market evidence; opinion does not identify the matrix as LSI
The court declined to require historical rates for nearly two years of earlier work, recognizing compensation for delay. It accepted the requested rates with support from environmental-law specialization and local comparisons.
The matrix was only part of the proof, some requested rates were below matrix calculations, and a footnote notes some rates had not changed since 2009. The interim fee total was reduced 50% for partial success. This is not adoption of Lodestar Rates’s formula.
Read authority ↗Matrix: LSI Laffey
The court expressly rejected historical Laffey rates and applied current LSI Laffey rates because the governing D.C. wage statute requires rates in effect when the fee determination is made. It approved updated rates after the original fee motion.
Statute-specific D.C. authority, not a nationwide FLSA rule or authority mandating Laffey in another city. The years of unpaid wages are not the dates of attorney work. The opinion’s displayed senior-rate figure should not be imported as a verified matrix dataset.
Read authority ↗Matrix: USAO matrix (not the LSI matrix)
The court applied the current $568 USAO/Laffey rate to counsel’s work stretching back to 2011, citing compensation for delayed payment and noting that the District did not contest the current-versus-historical issue. Local attorney affidavits also supported the rate.
A discretionary, unopposed timing determination using the USAO variant. It does not establish entitlement to LSI rates, automatic current-rate treatment, or current experience bands in other cases; other fee reductions were made.
Read authority ↗| Legal setting | Rule to evaluate | Key authority |
|---|---|---|
| California fee shifting | An appropriate contingency or other enhancement can be available under the governing statute. It is discretionary; do not reuse factors already reflected in rates or hours. | Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132–39 (2001) |
| Federal statutory fee shifting | Contingency risk alone generally does not justify a multiplier under the typical federal fee statutes. A rare enhancement under § 1988 requires specific proof of a factor the lodestar fails to capture. | Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562–67 (1992); Perdue, 559 U.S. 542, 554–56 (2010) |
| Common-fund class actions | A multiplier may be an enhancement or simply the ratio used to cross-check a percentage fee. Identify which is being used. Ninth Circuit common-fund risk and delay rules differ from the federal statutory contingency rule. | Stanger, 812 F.3d 734, 739–41 (9th Cir. 2016) |
Perdue: specific proof, exceptional delay and no double counting ↗
Matrix: 2007–2008 USAO Laffey, adjusted by OPM localities for San Francisco, Chico and Santa Ana. Actually used for lodestar cross-check.
The court computed a $1,807,306 lodestar and found the proposed $2,681,250 fee reasonable at preliminary settlement approval: implied multiplier 1.48. Strong recovery and litigation risk informed the assessment.
This is preliminary approval, not a final fee award. The multiplier is the ratio of proposed fee to calculated lodestar, not a blanket entitlement to enhance every Laffey figure. USAO rates differ from the publisher LSI reconstruction on this website.
Read authority ↗Matrix: Unspecified Laffey offered by counsel. Expressly declined.
Court declined requested enhancement: issues were not novel or complex, two motions went unopposed, a later motion substantially repeated prior work, and the record did not show precluded employment.
Neither matrix nor multiplier adopted. Demonstrates that the governing fee statute, evidence and already-compensated factors must be examined separately.
Read authority ↗Adapt to the governing statute and record. Brackets require evidence and legal review.
Start with the claim and the source of payment. Then support the hours, rates, and result.
The FLSA provides reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. A fee request needs documented hours and reasonable market rates. The site’s calculated matrix is supporting material, not a judicial finding of local rates.
29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ↗Requires a reasoned assessment of common-fund fees, including the fund, beneficiaries, objections, counsel’s skill, complexity, risk, time, and comparable awards. The fee ruling was vacated and remanded, not an approval of a requested percentage.
Read the authority ↗Federal statutory contingency-risk enhancements are barred under Dague. Perdue permits enhancement only in rare, exceptional circumstances supported by specific evidence. Neither makes a multiplier automatic when Laffey rates are used.
Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) ↗ · Perdue, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) ↗Identify the fee statute, compensable tasks, staffing, experience, market evidence, and degree of success. For delay, distinguish current rates from an additional interest adjustment. Do not compensate the same factor twice.
Compare a proposed fund-paid fee with the unadjusted lodestar. No percentage is recommended or preselected.
Exclusions may include costs, administration, or other payments. Identify them in the motion; the proper denominator depends on the governing law and settlement terms.
Complete the amounts to see the fee, remaining fund, and implied multiplier.
Requires a reasoned assessment of common-fund fees, including the fund, beneficiaries, objections, counsel’s skill, complexity, risk, time, and comparable awards. The fee ruling was vacated and remanded, not an approval of a requested percentage.
Read the authority ↗Affirmed a 28% common-fund fee and a 3.65 lodestar cross-check in employee-benefits litigation. The 25% benchmark is a starting point, not a ceiling. This was not an FLSA fee award or a Laffey-rate ruling.
Read the authority ↗In a wage-and-hour class settlement, the court affirmed a one-third fee from a $19 million fund, with a lodestar cross-check of about 2.03–2.13. The percentage and cross-check were discretionary; this is not approval of a Laffey schedule or an FLSA risk enhancement.
Read the authority ↗Rejected a proportionality limit on fees in an individual FLSA settlement. A small worker recovery does not itself justify a one-third fee cap. Reasonableness remains necessary; this does not establish a common-fund percentage entitlement.
Read the authority ↗Every calculation uses saved source data. Snapshot checked October 30, 2026; updates are not automatic.
The publisher’s PDF establishes the original base and the CPI-to-PPI transition. The original website provides historical context.
Publisher PDF ↗ · Original site ↗15 metropolitan areas plus Washington–Baltimore, for 2016–2026. Archived OPM PDFs include their source URLs and checksums.
Selected city / year ↗ · Same-year denominator ↗Series CUUR0000SEGD01, not seasonally adjusted. June 1988 anchor, June values through 2021, and May/July averages for 2022–23.
BLS source data ↗Series PCU541110541110, not seasonally adjusted. June 2023 bridge to current June. June 2026 is preliminary and may be revised.
Series details ↗ · BLS data ↗All city-year rates, original bases, CPI/PPI values, locality percentages, source URLs, and exact calculation conventions.
Calculation inputs ↓ · Method note ↓Original source links and downloadable calculation inputs. Inspect source links, data dates, and supporting opinions alongside the calculation inputs.
Download source inventory ↓