How to run attorney fee calculations in DocketMath for New York

Step-by-step

This guide walks you through running attorney fee calculations in DocketMath for New York (US-NY) using the attorney-fee calculator. You’ll enter the right inputs, apply New York-specific logic when relevant, and interpret the outputs so your numbers match the fee model you’re using.

1) Start in the attorney-fee calculator

Open DocketMath’s attorney fee tool here: /tools/attorney-fee .

Then confirm you’re in the US-NY jurisdiction context. (In DocketMath, New York-specific fee behavior can vary depending on the fee basis and case type you model in the calculator.)

2) Choose the fee model that fits your worksheet

In many attorney fee workflows, you’ll choose among models such as:

• Hourly / lodestar-style calculations (commonly used for fee-shifting scenarios depending on the governing fee framework you’re modeling)
• Contingency fee calculations (used when the representation is contingent on results, including scenarios with special contingency limits)

In DocketMath, your selection typically changes:

• which inputs you’re prompted to enter (for example, “rates” vs. “percent”), and
• how the final fee is computed from those inputs.

3) If you’re modeling medical-malpractice contingency in New York, use the tiered cap mode

New York law can include a tiered contingency fee structure for medical-malpractice, addressed in N.Y. Jud. Law § 474-a. If your matter is the kind of medical-malpractice contingency scenario covered by that framework, run the calculator using the medical-malpractice tiered schedule mode (not a generic flat-percentage contingency model).

DocketMath’s verified tiered cap overrides for this schedule are:

These tiers are modeled to reflect N.Y. Jud. Law § 474-a(2) logic within the tool’s contingency configuration.

What to do in the calculator:

• If DocketMath asks you to choose a tiered schedule / tiered cap contingency mode, enable that option.
• Enter the amount the calculator expects as the base for tiering (often presented as the “amount recovered” or equivalent base figure used to apply the slices).
• Confirm you’re using the medical-malpractice tiered schedule rather than a generic contingency percentage mode.

4) If you’re not in medical-malpractice contingency, use New York fee principles that affect “reasonable” fees

For non-medical-malpractice matters, New York’s ethics framework for fees still matters when you’re assessing whether a requested fee arrangement is consistent with professional obligations. One key authority is N.Y. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.5 (Fees for Legal Services).

In DocketMath terms, this usually means:

• you enter the fee inputs that correspond to your chosen fee arrangement (hourly/lodestar or contingency), and
• you interpret the output in light of the model you selected (and whether it matches the agreement or analysis you’re trying to run).

The tool will calculate based on the model you enter; you’re responsible for making sure your inputs reflect the fee basis you’re analyzing.

5) If the calculation uses a lodestar multiplier, verify the multiplier cap in the tool

Some fee models include a lodestar multiplier step. DocketMath’s verified configuration includes:

• lodestar_multiplier_cap.default_multiplier: 1

So, when you run a lodestar-style scenario in this tool, expect the multiplier logic to follow that default unless the calculator provides other options/inputs that you’re explicitly selecting.

6) Add receipts / limitation-period inputs only when the calculator requests them

DocketMath’s attorney-fee tool includes receipt-related configuration where the limitation-period handling is set to “see statute.” Practically, this means:

• Only enter receipt-related fields if the calculator prompts you for them, and
• Enter the date/amount details exactly as prompted (so the tool’s internal “see statute” logic can apply correctly).

Because the packet doesn’t provide a specific numeric limitation-period value to plug in, avoid inventing a window. Let the calculator’s own limitation-period handling guide the computation.

7) Run the calculation and sanity-check the outputs

After you run the calculation:

• If you used medical-malpractice tiered caps, the fee result should behave like a slice-by-slice percentage applied to the tiered base amounts (rather than a single flat percentage across the entire recovery).
• If you used lodestar multiplier logic, check whether the effective multiplier shown in the output aligns with the tool’s default expectation of 1.
• If you entered receipt-related inputs, confirm the breakdown reflects those entries (especially where the tool references limitation-period logic).

A quick sanity check for tiered medical-malpractice runs:

• The computed fee should not exceed the maximum allowed percentages for each tiered slice as modeled by the tool’s verified configuration.

8) Export / use the result in your workflow

Once the number looks consistent with the model you intended:

• copy the totals,
• save the inputs you used (so someone can reproduce the run), and
• attach the breakdown to your internal fee analysis documentation.

Practical tip: If your result seems “too high” or “too low,” don’t immediately assume the math is wrong—first verify that you selected the correct fee model (flat contingency vs. tiered medical-malpractice vs. lodestar-style).

Common pitfalls

These issues commonly cause “right tool, wrong answer” outcomes when running attorney fee calculations in New York.

• Using a flat contingency rate for a tiered medical-malpractice scenario

  • If you’re modeling the medical-malpractice tiered contingency framework, the calculation should reflect the tiered schedule rather than a single flat contingency percentage.

• Selecting the wrong contingency mode

  • It’s easy to pick a generic contingency option when you intended the medical-malpractice tiered cap logic. The output will still compute, but under the wrong fee model.

• Applying tiers to the wrong base figure

  • In a tiered system, your fee outcome depends on which number the tool treats as the “amount” used to apply each bracket. Make sure you’ve entered the base figure in the field the calculator expects.

• Assuming a lodestar multiplier different from the tool’s default

  • DocketMath’s verified default multiplier cap is 1, so if the tool doesn’t show another selected multiplier basis, your effective multiplier should align with that.

• Entering receipt-related facts without matching the tool prompts

  • Receipt/limitation-period handling is configured as “see statute.” Enter receipt fields only when requested and match the calculator’s prompts exactly.

• Overlooking New York’s fee ethics lens when choosing a model

  • N.Y. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.5 governs reasonableness considerations for fees for legal services. Even though this guide is about tool operation, your model selection should match the fee arrangement you’re analyzing.

Try it

Here’s a quick “run it once” checklist you can follow inside DocketMath /tools/attorney-fee:

• Confirm jurisdiction context is US-NY
• Pick the fee approach:

  • Contingency fee (medical-malpractice tiered model) if your scenario is the kind of medical-malpractice contingency framework addressed by N.Y. Jud. Law § 474-a
  • Other fee model (hourly/lodestar or general contingency) if you’re not modeling medical-malpractice tiering—while keeping N.Y. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.5 in mind for reasonableness in your overall analysis
• If medical-malpractice tiered:

  • Ensure the calculator uses the tiered schedule caps (30% / 25% / 20% / 15% / 10% with the verified up-to amounts)
  • Make sure you’re using the tiered-caps mode, not a flat-percentage contingency mode
• If lodestar-style:

  • Check the tool’s multiplier behavior; the verified default multiplier is 1
• Enter any receipts/limitation-period inputs only as prompted
• Review the breakdown and sanity-check that the output matches the model you intended (tiered slices vs. single rate vs. lodestar multiplier)

If you want, tell me what you’re modeling at a high level (e.g., whether it’s contingency vs. lodestar, and whether you’re using the tiered medical-malpractice schedule), and I can help you map those facts to the correct DocketMath input fields—without providing legal advice.

Related reading

• Attorney fee calculations in United States (Federal) — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Why attorney fee calculations results differ in United States (Federal) — Troubleshooting when results differ
• Attorney fee calculations reference snapshot for United States (Federal) — Rule summary with authoritative citations