that “[l]aw firms generally operate with a profit motive where efficiency is the rule demanded in every case. These firms do not have the luxury to address every detail of a case ad infinitum.” Id. at *6. Instead, to calculate the lodestar, courts must look to “ ‘what a reasonable, paying client would be willing to pay,’ given that such a party ‘wishes to spend the minimum necessary to litigate the case effectively.’” Id. (quoting Simmons, 575 F.3d at 174). Finally, the Second Circuit has said that calculating reasonable hours expended is “best made by the district court on the basis of its own assessment of what is appropriate for the scope and complexity of the particular litigation.” Carey, 711 F.2d at 1146; see also Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127, 175 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). “In making this examination, the district
holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees holding that the district court which is intimately familiar with the nuances of the case is in the best position to determine an appropriate fees award holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case