rate, that rate did not reflect any risk of nonpayment. They explained that their “reasonable hourly rate” of $350 for an attorney did “not take into account any contingency enhancement.” The district court acknowledged this fact when it stated, “[i]n the present case, the court adopted hourly rates consistent with the prevailing market in calculating a reasonable fee.” The final consideration is the risk involved in the case. This includes the strength, both legal and factual, of the case. Although there is no dispute that a court should consider risk at the “outset” of litigation, see, e.g., Florin v. Nationsbank of Georgia, 34 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir.1994), courts disagree about exactly when this should be. Compare Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 55 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), with In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 751
holding that risk must be measured at the time the lawsuit is filed holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed holding that risk is measured at the point when the attorneys time was committed to the case holding that whether an action would have a conceivable effect on the bankrupt estate is determined at the time a lawsuit is filed holding that to be timely the notice of a charging lien must be filed before the lawsuit has been reduced to judgment