attorney’s fees to be implicitly included in a proof of claim. See Tri-State Homes Inc. v. Mears (In re Tri-State Homes Inc.), 56 B.R. 24, 27 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1985). See also In re Demert & Dougherty Inc., 1999 WL 1140859 *8 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1999); In re Ronecker, 204 B.R. 552, 554-55 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1997). At any rate, Former Employees incurred their attorney’s fees in postpetition litigation with Pride. The fees had not accrued at the time that they filed their proofs of claim. Section 38.001 provides that a person may recover reasonable attorney’s fees on a claim arising under a contract. Despite the term “may”, the Fifth Circuit has interpreted this statute as mandatory: “[u]nder Texas law, when a prevailing party in a breach of contract suit see App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Former Employees satisfy both the procedural
holding that predecessor to section 38001 codified with no changes as section 38001 et seq contained no requirement that the contract sued upon have a provision providing for attorneys fees holding fees mandatory under predecessor statute of  38001 holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 holding defendant could not recover attorneys fees under predecessor to statute 38001 when defendant did not present contract claim