litigation; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney because of acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney's customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in the case and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; (10) whether the case is undesirable; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. 7 . Wachovia cites to District of Connecticut cases including Piurkowski v. Goggin, No. 3:01cv302(SRU), 2004 WL 1534200, at *3 n. 5, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12656, at *10 n. 5 (D.Conn. July 6, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Accel Int’l Corp. v. Renwick, No. 3:03cv983
holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine recognizing that between 250 and 300 an hour is a reasonable rate for an attorney with a great deal of expertise his or her field holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client recognizing that 90 per hour is a reasonable rate for a paralegal