ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF THE LAW WITH REGARD TO DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COURT AWARDS REVEALS SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION. TWO DISTINCT SOURCES OF JUDICIAL POWER TO AWARD FEES -- THE EQUITABLE POWER OF COURTS WITH PROPER JURISDICTIONAL GRANT TO PREVENT UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY CONGRESS TO AID THE ENFORCEMENT OF DESIGNATED RIGHTS -- ARE CONSIDERED. THE DISCRETION OF THE COURTS IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT OF A FEE AWARD IS FOUND NOT TO BE UNLIMITED IN EITHER CONTEXT. IN BOTH CONTEXTS, A REASONABLE FEE IS ONE THAT AWARDS THE ATTORNEY THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TIME AND EFFORT JUSTIFIABLY EXPENDED. A FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING A REASONABLE FEE IS DEVELOPED THAT EMPLOYS MOST OF THE FACTORS CONSIDERED BY COURTS IN THE PAST WHILE PURPOSELY EXCLUDING OTHERS, PARTICULARLY THE RESULT OF THE LAWSUIT. THE SUGGESTED APPROACH USES THE HOURS JUSTIFIABLY EXPENDED BY THE ATTORNEY, MULTIPLIED BY THE ATTORNEY'S MARKET RATE, MULTIPLIED BY THE RISK OF NONRECOVERY AT THE OUTSET OF THE LITIGATION.