◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1870 77 community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or con- tingent; (7) time limitations imposed by client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (12) awards in similar cases. Id. at 717-19, as cited in King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1026-27 (1st Cir. 1977) cert. denied, 46 U.S.L.W. 3803 (June 27, 1978). Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees for their trial work. e language of the Act precludes an award to the un- successful party in a civil rights trial. In the case at bar, plaintiffs were not “the prevailing party” at the trial level and therefore are not permitted to receive fees for that effort under section 1988. In light of our decision to- day, however, we hold that if plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the district court shall award reasonable at- torneys’ fees for the district court phase of the case preceding this appeal in addition to any further at- torneys’ fees the trial court may deem appropriate after retrial. XI. CONTEMPT JUDGMENTS In separate appeals Jeffrey H. Haas and G. Flint Taylor, attorneys for plaintiffs, asked that the contempt judgments entered against them be reversed. These appeals have been consolidated with the main appeal. In order to appraise fully these contempt matters, it is necessary to present the facts in detail. TAYLOR In the last days of October 1976 plaintiffs called Robert Zimmers, the FBI firearms expert, as a witness. On November 1, while Zimmers was on the stand, the following took place: Mr. Haas [attorney for plaintiffs]: I now show you what I will mark as RZ51 and ask you what type of weapon is this, sir?