the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the' services were rendered; the responsibility imposed; the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy, or involved in the employment; the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services; the professional character and standing of the attorney; the results secured....” City of Wichita v. Chapman, 214 Kan. 575, 521 P.2d 589, 598 (1974) (citation omitted). In this case, Plaintiffs attorneys invested significant time providing services in a complicated i her factors explained above, the court determines that recovery for half of the attorney hours is reasonable. See Ortega v. City of Kan. City, Kan., 659 F.Supp. 1201, 1217 (D.Kan.1987), rev’d on other grounds, 875 F.2d 1497 (<HOLDING>). This rough approximation should account for
recognizing that enhancement for results obtained may be warranted holding that under  1988 consideration of the results obtained relative to the relief requested is required holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988 holding that even after a ten percent reduction to the lodestar fee the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider the result obtained relative to the attorneys fees requested holding that  109g2 does not apply when the creditor seeking relief in the first case received the requested relief