The fee application that gets cut is the one backed by a summary. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 119.02 doesn’t ask for a total, a rate, and a statement that the work was reasonable. It asks for four things, and one of them is a sworn statement that you personally reviewed the underlying time records and stripped out the duplicative work. A declaration that recites hours and a rate doesn’t satisfy the rule. And a court that wants to trim a fee award has the rule’s own checklist to do it with.
The threshold that puts you inside the rule is low. Rule 119.01:
In any action or proceeding in which an attorney seeks the award, or approval, of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,000.00 for the action, or more, application for award or approval of fees shall be made by motion.
$1,000.00 for the action. Not per motion, not per request. The rule measures the amount sought for the action, so a fee-shifting claim of any real size clears it. And the vehicle is a motion. A letter to the court, a paragraph in a proposed order, or a number dropped into a judgment request isn’t what the rule provides for.
When does Rule 119 not apply?
Below the threshold, and in four categories of probate and trust proceeding. By its terms, Rule 119.01 reaches applications of $1,000.00 or more. It doesn’t prescribe a procedure for smaller requests. That isn’t permission to submit a smaller request with nothing behind it (the court still has to find the fee reasonable), but the rule’s motion requirement is keyed to the dollar figure.
The probate and trust carve-out is narrower than it looks. Rule 119.01 provides that “[a]s to probate and trust matters, application of the rule is limited to contested formal court proceedings.” Then, “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular proceeding,” it excludes four things: (a) informal probates; (b) formal probates closed on consents; (c) uncontested trust proceedings; and (d) routine guardianship or conservatorship proceedings, “except where the Court determines necessary to protect the interests of the ward.” Both escape hatches are in the rule’s own text: the court can order otherwise in a particular proceeding, and it can pull a guardianship or conservatorship back in.
What must the affidavit contain?
Four things, and the fourth is the one lawyers skip. Rule 119.02: “The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit of any attorney of record which establishes the following:”
-
A description of each item of work performed, the date upon which it was performed, the amount of time spent on each item of work, the identity of the lawyer or legal assistant performing the work, and the hourly rate sought for the work performed;
-
The normal hourly rate for each person for whom compensation is sought, with an explanation of the basis for any difference between the amount sought and the normal hourly billing rate, if any;
-
A detailed itemization of all amounts sought for disbursements or expenses, including the rate for which any disbursements are charged and the verification that the amounts sought represent the actual cost to the lawyer or firm for the disbursements sought; and
-
That the affiant has reviewed the work in progress or original time records, the work was actually performed for the benefit of the client and was necessary for the proper representation of the client, and that charges for any unnecessary or duplicative work has been eliminated from the application or motion.
Read item 1 as five separate data points per entry: the work, the date, the time, the person, and the rate sought. Block-billed entries don’t give you that. If your habit is to record “review file; correspondence; prepare for hearing — 3.4,” you haven’t met the rule’s first requirement, and fixing it after the motion’s on file means reconstructing time. That’s worse.
Item 2 is a comparison, not a rate disclosure. The affidavit must state the normal hourly rate for each timekeeper and explain any difference between that and the amount sought. Contingent, reduced-rate, and pro bono representations all have to deal with this line, and the explanation goes in the affidavit, not the brief.
Item 3 takes more than a disbursements total: the rate charged for any disbursement, plus verification that the amount sought is the actual cost to the lawyer or firm. A per-page copy charge above actual cost is exactly what that verification is aimed at.
Item 4 is the affiant’s personal review, of “the work in progress or original time records,” not of the summary prepared for the motion, plus three sworn statements: that the work was actually performed for the benefit of the client, that it was necessary for the proper representation of the client, and that charges for unnecessary or duplicative work have been eliminated. Signing item 4 without doing the review is a different order of problem than a thin fee petition.
Look at who signs. The rule requires only “an affidavit of any attorney of record,” not one from every timekeeper. One attorney of record can carry the affidavit, but that affidavit has to establish all four items for every timekeeper, including any legal assistant whose time you’re billing, which item 1 expressly contemplates. If you sign under Minn. Stat. § 358.116 instead of in front of a notary, the signature must sit immediately below a declaration using substantially this language: “I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct.” The statute also requires the date of signing and the county and state of signing to be noted on the document.
Can the court demand more than the rule requires?
Yes, and it doesn’t need to give a reason on the record. Rule 119.03: “The court may require production of copies of additional records, including any fee agreement relevant to the fee application, bills actually rendered to the client, work in progress reports, time sheets, invoices or statements for disbursements, or other relevant records.” The next sentence controls who sees them: “These documents may be ordered produced for review by all parties or for in camera review by the court.”
So the fee agreement itself is on the rule’s list. Assume it’s in play in the fee proceeding. And in camera review is available. The 1997 Advisory Committee Comment calls it “often necessary given the sensitive nature of the required fee information and the need to protect the party entitled to attorney fees from having to compromise its attorney’s thoughts, mental impressions, or other work product in order to support its fee application.” The comment adds that the court may instead permit redacted copies. Ask for one or the other before you put privileged narrative entries in the public record.
Is a memorandum required?
Rule 119.04 says “should,” not “shall”: “The motion should be accompanied by a memorandum of law that discusses the basis for recovery of attorney’s fees and explains the calculation of the award of fees sought and the appropriateness of that calculation under applicable law.” Don’t lean on the permissive verb. The memorandum is where the entitlement question gets answered, and Rule 119 doesn’t answer it. The 1997 Advisory Committee Comment states that the rule “is intended to create a standard procedure only; it neither expands nor limits the entitlement to recovery of attorneys’ fees in any case.” You still need a statute, a contract, or another recognized basis. Our client-facing survey of Minnesota’s fee-shifting provisions is a place to start looking for one.
The same comment explains what the affidavit is built for: “Where fees are to be determined under the ‘lodestar’ method widely used in the federal courts and adopted in Minnesota in Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520, 542-43 (Minn. 1986), trial courts need to have information to support the reasonableness of the hours claimed to be expended as well as the reasonable hourly rate under the circumstances.” In Specialized Tours the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred by limiting its inquiry to hours expended times hourly rate, and remanded for an analysis following Hensley v. Eckerhart that weighed the results obtained. Rate times hours is where the math starts, not where it ends. A memorandum that only proves rate and hours has argued half the motion.
How does the fee motion get on the calendar?
On the nondispositive track, which means a 21-day runway. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.01(a)(1) defines dispositive motions as those “which seek to dispose of all or part of the claims or parties, except motions for default judgment.” Rule 115.01(a)(2) provides that “[n]ondispositive motions are all other motions” — a residual category that, by the rule’s own text, also reaches “discovery, third party practice, temporary relief, intervention or amendment of pleadings.” A fee application doesn’t seek to dispose of a claim or a party, so it lands in the residual category and runs on Rule 115.04: the moving party pays any required filing fee, serves, and files the notice of motion and motion, proposed order, any affidavits and exhibits, and any memorandum at least 21 days before the hearing; the responding party at least 14 days before; and a reply “limited to new legal or factual matters raised by an opposing party’s response to a motion” at least 7 days before. Rule 115.05 caps memoranda at 35 pages, and the reply counts against the same 35. The Rule 115 article has the rest of the mechanics, and computing time under Rule 6 covers counting backward from a hearing date.
Is there a shortcut for a default?
Yes. It’s Rule 119.05, and it’s capped. A party proceeding by default (including a party seeking to enforce a confession of judgment) who has established a basis for the award under applicable law “may obtain approval of the fees administratively without a motion hearing,” provided three conditions are met:
- The fees requested “do not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the principal balance owing as requested in that party’s pleadings, up to a maximum of $3,000.00” — and the rule adds that “[s]uch a party may seek a minimum of $250.00” — Rule 119.05(a)(1).
- The requesting party’s pleading “includes a claim for attorney fees in an amount greater than or equal to the amount sought upon default” — Rule 119.05(a)(2). Plead the fee claim at or above what you will ask for.
- The defaulting party, after default has occurred, has been given notice of the right to request a hearing under Rule 119.05(c), a request form substantially similar to Form 119.05 as published by the state court administrator, and the Rule 119.02 affidavit. Rule 119.05(a)(3). The 2003 Advisory Committee Comment is explicit that timing matters: “The rule requires that notice be given after the defendant has defaulted. Notice given earlier is not effective to comply with the rule[.]”
Rule 119.05(c) has two day counts, and they run in opposite directions. The form may be served any time after default “provided that the defaulting party is given at least 21 days’ notice before the request for judgment is made.” A defaulting party “must serve the Request for Hearing upon the requesting party or its counsel within 21 days of its receipt.” On timely receipt of a request, “the party seeking fees shall request a judicial assignment and have the hearing scheduled” — the burden of getting the hearing on the calendar sits with the party seeking the fees.
Rule 119.05(b) keeps the other road open: a party may request a formal hearing and seek fees above the cap by providing evidence relevant to the amount requested. And Rule 119.05(d) fences the shortcut in. It “does not apply to contested cases, ancillary proceedings (e.g., motions to compel or show cause) or proceedings subsequent to the entry of judgment.” A fee award tied to a motion to compel isn’t a Rule 119.05 matter; see Rule 37. The default mechanics themselves are in the Rule 55 article.
And the streamlined procedure doesn’t get rid of the motion. The 2003 Advisory Committee Comment: “Similarly, the rule does not remove the requirement that a party seeking fees file a motion; it simply provides a mechanism for resolution of some motions without formal hearings.”
Does the assigned judge’s standing order change any of this?
It can, and you have to look. Minnesota district court judges publish practice pointers and standing orders that regularly add requirements the rules don’t have: courtesy copies, specific formats for time-record submissions, chambers procedures for in camera review, and scheduling practices for fee motions. Where a judge’s order addresses something, that order governs how the application is handled in that courtroom. They’re published on the judicial district’s pages at mncourts.gov. Read them before you notice the hearing. Nothing here describes what any particular judge requires.
Madgett Law, LLC associates with lawyers on Minnesota district court matters. Send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 119.01 (motion requirement; $1,000.00 threshold; probate and trust limitation and subparts (a)–(d)), 119.02(1)–(4) (required affidavit contents), 119.03 (additional records; in camera review), 119.04 (memorandum of law), 119.05(a)(1)–(3), (b), (c), (d) (attorney fees in default proceedings); Advisory Committee Comments to the 1997 and 2003 amendments to Rule 119. Also Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.01(a)(1)–(2), 115.04(a)–(c), 115.05; Minn. Stat. § 358.116 (declaration in lieu of notarization), revisor.mn.gov, August 10, 2026. Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1986), quoted as cited in the 1997 Advisory Committee Comment. Rule text: the published Minnesota General Rules of Practice, August 10, 2026; Rule 119.02 carries an amendment effective July 1, 2015 and Rule 119.05 an amendment effective January 1, 2020, and Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.04 carries an amendment effective July 1, 2026. Judicial district standing orders and policies pages, mncourts.gov.
General legal information about Minnesota procedure, not legal advice. No attorney–client relationship is created by this article, and no outcome is promised or implied.