and client. Tallitsch v. Child Support Services, Inc., supra. Although the reasonableness of attorney fees is a question of fact for the trial court, we conclude that it is error to reduce an attorney's hourly rate based solely on the attorney's status as a salaried lawyer paid by a nonprofit entity such as the Town. Salaried and public interest attorneys should be awarded attorney fees based on the prevailing market rate rather than a "cost-plus" approach focusing on the attorney's salary. See California Common Cause v. Duffy, 200 Cal.App.3d 730, 246 Cal.Rptr. 285 (1987). See also Oten v. Colorado Board of Social Services, 738 P.2d 37 (Colo.App.1987.)(awarding attorney fees based on market rate to legal services attorneys); In re Marriage of Swink, 807 P.2d 1245 (Colo.App.1991)(<HOLDING>). The fact that the attorneys may not
holding that  1410119 cr81999 authorizes market rate fees to pro bono attorneys who render services in dissolution of marriage actions holding that upon dissolution of partnership of attorneys fees collected for work on cases prior to dissolution should be divided among former partners but fees for work done after dissolution went to individual partner who performed the work holding that 42 usc  1988 authorizes the grant of attorneys fees for services on appeal though statute does not specifically so provide holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate holding that by choosing the words any actual expenses including attorneys fees incurred congress did not intend to remove the discretion of the district court to award fees in cases such as contingent fee or pro bono cases where the client has not actually incurred the obligation to pay her attorneys fees