Laserfiche WebLink
~~ i ~ <br />197 Colo. 275. 591 P.2d 1318 (1979). Among other factors <br />that must be considered are "the length of time necessary <br />to represent the client effectiv_e__y ... ," Hartman, supra. <br />591 P.2d at 1322 (emphasis added). "/t/he fee customarily <br />charged in the locality for similar legal services." and <br />"/t/he experience reautation, and ability of the lawyer or <br />lawyers performing the services." Mau, supra. 638 P. 2d at <br />779. In both Hartman and Nau, appellants challenged fee <br />awards on the ground that the award was excessive in relation <br />to the amount in controversy, and in both cases the supreme <br />court rejected that contention. <br />Equally clearly, defendants' attorneys' assessment of <br />the merit or lack thereof in a plaintiff's claim dces not <br />and cannot control the vigor of the defense accorded that <br />claim. Plaintiffs' suggestion that defending against frivo- <br />lous litigation should not require a significant amount of <br />time is directly contrary to the compelling public pclicy <br />considerations inherent in actions of this type. If coverrt- <br />ment agencies were to adopt a practice of according such <br />cases anything less than the best possible defense, they <br />could open themselves to a flood of harassing litigation, <br />which would undermine the purposes and policies of the laws <br />these agencies are obligated to enforce. In addition, although <br />the relative complexity of the litigation may properly be <br />-4- <br />