law controls both the award of and the reasonableness of fees awarded where state law supplies the rule of decision.”) Because Pikco’s entitlement to fees is based on a contract governed by Missis-sippi law, the Court will apply Mississippi law to determine whether the requested fees are reasonable. In most cases in Mis-sissippi, whether state or federal law ap-plies is a distinction without a difference because the lodestar method and John-son factors applied by federal courts are “almost identical” to those applied by the Mississippi Supreme Court and codified in Rule 1.5 of the Mississippi Rules of Profes-sional Conduct. See Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., 741 So.2d 259, 272 (Miss. 1999); Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Harried, No. 5:06cv160, 2011 WL 283925, at *7 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 25, 2011) (<HOLDING>). The Mississippi Code provides that In any
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that though mississippi law governs the amount of the fee award here because the factors considered under state and federal law are nearly identical both state and federal cases are instructive recognizing that the aba guidelines and federal law are instructive holding that federal law governs the definition of property which embraces both fee and lien interests holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law