award made under the LHWCA, the provisions of which are applicable in BLBA cases, we recognized that an agency adjudicator “generally can look to previous awards in the relevant marketplace as a barometer for how much to award counsel in the immediate case.” Holiday, 591 F.3d at 228 (citation omitted). Indeed, we have held that “[e]vidence of fee awards in comparable cases is generally sufficient to establish the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Brown, 376 F.3d 245, 251 (4th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1402 (4th Cir.1987)). Of course, prior fee awards do not themselves actually set the market rate. B & G Mining, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 522 F.3d 657, 664 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). However, such fee awards do provide
holding that a district judge may rely on his own knowledge of private firm hourly rates in the community in determining the prevailing market rate holding that the fee applicant must produce specific evidence of the prevailing market rates in the relevant community for the type of work for which he seeks an award holding that absent other evidence of prevailing market rates the district judge may establish a reasonable rate based on his familiarity with the prevailing rates in the area recognizing implied duty to market recognizing that rates awarded in other cases do not set the prevailing market rateonly the market can do that