(In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig.), 19 F.3d 1291, 1294 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994) (“Washington Public ”). There is a “strong presumption” that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee. D’Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 904 F.2d 1379, 1384 (9th Cir.1990), overruled on other grounds by Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992). Thus, although a court can adjust the lodestar upward or downward based on certain factors, adjustments are “the exception rather than the rule.” Id. at 1383-84. “Reasonableness is the goal, and mechanical or formulaic application of either method, where it yields an unreasonable result, can be an abuse of discretion.” Coordinated Pretrial, 109 F.3d at 607; see also Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt, 886 F.2d at 271 (<HOLDING>). When using the percentage-of-the-fund
holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award 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 recognizing that class counsels request for a 10 common fund award is well below the typical 2030 fee awards in class actions recognizing that the acceptable range of fee awards is 20 to 50 of the common fund