one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, explained that he d[id] not believe [that his] law firm would have agreed in advance to undertake a complex class action for an aggregate award for all counsel of less then 20% of a common fund where the fund, as here, was not anticipated to be over $20 million. In light of the Federal Judicial Center’s report of a mean rate of 27 percent and a median rate of 29 percent for class settlements approved in district courts in Northern California from 1992 to 1994, see Thomas E. Willging et al., Empirical Study of Class Actions in Four Federal District Courts: Final Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules 147 (1996), counsel’s expectation that they would receive a higher percentage of the fund was reasonable. See Washington Public, 19 F.3d at 1302 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ counsel’s expectation was
recognizing that class counsels request for a 10 common fund award is well below the typical 2030 fee awards in class actions holding that counsels expectations that they would receive a fee enhancement for risk appeared to have been reasonable especially given the common practice in the 1980s for courts to award multipliers in common fund cases holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances recognizing that the acceptable range of fee awards is 20 to 50 of the common fund recognizing that unit owners own the common elements in fee as tenants in common