Cited by

in the determination of reasonable fees include the amount involved, the nature, novelty, and difficulty of the litigation, the 3 attorney’s standing and the skill employed, the time devoted, the customary fees in the area, the extent to which the attorney prevailed, and the benefit thereby bestowed on his clients.” Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296 (1977).

Conduct 1.5 Ethics Committee Comment, which helps to promote "the achievement of statutory goals," Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 295, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977) (quotation omitted).

Conduct 1.5 Ethics Committee Comment, which helps to promote “the achievement of statutory goals,” Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 295 (1977) (quotation omitted).

Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296 (1977) (decided under prior law).

Rather, the trial court considered factors taken from Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296 (1977), to determine the reasonable percentage allocation of costs and fees between the prevailing and non-prevailing plaintiffs.

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.” In re Estate of Rolfe, 136 N.H. 294, 299, 615 A.2d 625, 628-29 (1992) (quotation omitted); see Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296, 371 A.2d 1184, 1186 (1977).

Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296, 371 A.2d 1184, 1186 (1977); In re Bergeron Estate, 117 N.H. 963, 967, 380 A.2d 678, 681 (1977).

The criteria for determining an award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to RSA 281:37-a are set forth in Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977).

Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296, 371 A.2d 1184, 1186 (1977).

Corson v. Brown Produets, Inc., 120 N.H. 665, 667, 421 A.2d 1005, 1007 (1980); Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296, 371 A.2d 1184, 1186 (1977) (citing then applicable New Hampshire Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 2-106(B)).

In Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977), taking our cue from the Code of Professional Responsibility, we set out eight guiding factors for use in determining whether an attorney’s fee is reasonable: “the amount involved, the nature, novelty, and difficulty of the litigation, the attorney’s standing and the skill employed, the time dev

at 967, 380 A.2d at 681 (citations omitted); see also Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296, 371 A.2d 1184, 1186 (1977); see Code of Professional Responsibility for New Hampshire Lawyers DR 2-106(B).

at 5-8 (1st Cir. March 25, 1982); cf. Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296-97, 371 A.2d 1184, 1186 (1977) (award of contingent attorney’s fee).

Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 296, 371 A.2d 1184, 1186 (1977).

We now have the benefit of a complete record before us which clearly shows that the trial court considered and applied all the applicable factors set forth in Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977), to the “whole situation” of the case.

RSA 281:37-a provides in pertinent part that “[i]n any dispute over the amount of benefits payable under this chapter which is appealed to the superior or supreme courts, the employee, if he prevails, shall be entitled to reasonable counsel fees as approved by the court.” The defendant contends that it is implicit in this court’s decision in Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977), in which RSA 281:37-a was applied, that the insurance carrier must pay all the claim

.” The plaintiff relies on Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977), and in his brief argues: [T]he defendant has appealed the master’s ruling that the plaintiff is entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits____ [T]he plaintiff prevailed both at the Labor Department hearing and at the trial before the master, and that the superior court affirmed the plaintiffs

This court has recently held in Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977), that a contingent fee of one-third is not per se in excess of a reasonable fee provided in this statute.

1977) provides that “[i]n any action to determine coverage of an insurance policy pursuant to RSA 491:22, if the insured prevails in such action, he shall receive court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees from the insurer.” Here the town “prevails.” Costs *474 and reasonable attorneys’ fees may be collected from Commercial using the standards set forth in Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977).

Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977).

Couture v. Mammoth Groceries, Inc., 117 N.H. 294, 371 A.2d 1184 (1977).