A Pennsylvania federal judge on Friday awarded the attorneys representing a man in a wrongful conviction case less than half their desired amount for work done in pursuit of those fees, ruling that $135,795 was reasonable compensation.

U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy came in substantially lower than the $357,000 sought by attorneys for Termaine Hicks. Hicks, who spent 19 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of rape in 2002, was awarded $3 million by a federal jury in 2025, and his counsel were later awarded approximately $5.17 million in fees, though they'd requested $8.5 million. 

The current fee bid, which Judge Murphy called "unreasonable," stems from fees and costs incurred litigating the fee petition.

"After unreasonably requesting over $8.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs on a $3 million verdict, lawyers for Termaine Hicks now request $290,890.00 in additional fees and $65,941.94 in additional costs for work associated primarily with litigating the original unreasonable fee request," Judge Murphy said, adding, "We cannot sign off simply because the number looks small next to $8.5 million."

"Counsel spent an unreasonable number of hours litigating the fee petition," the judge added. "And their success in that litigation was limited. We thus reduce the fees by 30% for the unreasonable hours, and then by an additional 35% for the limited success."

After winning his case last year, Hicks petitioned the court for attorney fees. Judge Murphy noted that the request was of an "exceptional" nature and appointed a special master, former Chief U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg, to prepare a report and recommendation along with mediation by former U.S. Circuit Judge Kenta A. Jordan.

The special master's report and recommendation said that Hicks' counsel's rates were too high and that they billed an unreasonable amount of hours, according to Judge Murphy. The special master recommended a $4.65 million fee award instead. Combined with costs, Judge Murphy awarded a total of roughly $5.17 million in August.

Counsel for Hicks then sought supplemental fees and costs.

"To be sure, this was a complex case, with a very large requested fee award, and it is reasonable that the hours spent on the fee petition would be on the higher side. But even compared to other complex cases, the time spent revising the fee petition is an outlier," Judge Murphy said.

The judge also said the fee petition reflected an "unreasonable" distribution of work, with senior attorneys doing work junior attorneys could have done, and junior attorneys handling paralegal work.

Judge Murphy also pointed out duplication of work. For example, he said four attorneys edited the fee petition, with one billing $650 an hour for seven hours and another billing $1,000 for an additional hour of editing.

"While it is understandable that counsel, given their investment in the case, would choose to be exceptionally thorough in reviewing and revising the petition, that does not make it reasonable, and we decline to impose the resulting exceptional costs on defendants," Judge Murphy said.

Hicks filed his lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia in 2022. He alleged that police fabricated evidence leading to his 2002 conviction and 19-year prison stay. A jury found that Hicks was likely innocent, and found several officers and the city liable for civil rights violations.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Hicks is represented by Amelia Green, Emma Freudenberger, Mary Katherine McCarthy, Nick Brustin, Katrina Christensen Rogachevsky and Peter Neufeld of Neufeld Scheck Brustin Hoffmann & Freudenberger LLP and Grace Harris, Susan M. Lin and Jonathan H. Feinberg of Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg & Lin LLP.

The city of Philadelphia and the other defendants are represented by Danielle E. Walsh, Benjamin T. Jackal and Raymond Escobar of the Philadelphia Law Department, Samuel H. Ritterman, Aleena Y. Sorathia, Katelyn Mays and Joseph Zaffarese of Ahmad Zaffarese LLC and John A. DeRose and Khari Griffin of Clark Hill PLC.

The case is Hicks v. City of Philadelphia et al., case number 22-cv-977, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

--Additional reporting by Corey Rothauser. Editing by Rich Mills.