Walsh

MEMORANDUM **

The main issue in this case is the amount of the contingent fee due attorney Daniel Walsh. See Walsh v. Kelly, No. CV-N-94-466, Transcript of Decision by the Court (D.Nev. Apr. 21, 2000). Walsh’s fee is fifteen percent of the value of certain *708 real estate lots after the deduction of expenses. The value of the lots is to be determined as of November 1, 1991, the date on which Walsh’s services were completed. We review the district court’s factual determination of the value of the lots for clear error. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1097, 1106-07 (9th Cir.1998). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background, we do not detail it here.

The district court rejected as unreliable the comparable market data provided by experts from both parties because the unique lots could not be compared to other properties without substantial, subjective adjustments. Instead, the district court applied an appreciation method of valuation. The district court took the relatively recent sales of the lots in question and estimated what they were worth in 1991, assuming a steady 12% appreciation rate. Although the district court made a…