Supreme Court of the United States, Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC (2015)
“ We decline to adopt a reading of §330 (a) (1) that would allow courts to pay professionals for arguing for fees they were found never to have been entitled to in the first place. Such a result would not only require an unnatural interpretation of the term “services rendered,” but a particularly unusual deviation from the American Rule as well, as “ [m] ost fee-shifting provisions permit a court to award attorney’s fees only to a ‘prevailing party,’ ” a “ ‘substantially prevailing’ party,” or “a ‘successful’ litigant,” Hardt, 560 U. S., at 253 (footnote omitted) . ”
