Summary per Texas State Bar Litigation Section:

Even if the evidence on attorneys’ fees is competent, uncontroverted, and unchallenged, it remains a question of fact what amount of fees are reasonable under the relevant factors.  Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust, 296 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. 2009).

The plaintiff sought approximately $215,000 in damages and approximately $42,000 in attorneys’ fees through trial, plus $15,000 in appellate attorneys’ fees. Id. at 546. The evidence of attorneys’ fees was competent, uncontroverted, and unchallenged. Id. at 547. The jury awarded only $65,000 in damages – approximately one-third the amount sought – and zero attorneys’ fees. Id. at 546-47. On a motion to disregard the answer as to attorneys’ fees, the trial court rendered judgment  notwithstanding the verdict for attorneys’ fees of $7,500 through trial and up to $15,000 in appellate fees. Id. The court of appeals vacated the $7,500 portion of the fee award and rendered judgment for the entire $42,000 in trial attorneys’ fees instead, based on the unchallenged evidence. Id. at 547.. The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s award of zero attorneys’ fees. Id. at 548. However, the Court disagreed that the unchallenged evidence established the amount of a reasonable fee as a matter of law. Id. One of the factors in determining a reasonable attorneys’ fee is the amount involved, and the jury found that the amount involved was much lower than the plaintiff claimed it to be. Id. Thus, the evidence – albeit unchallenged – did no more than raise a fact issue to be decided by the jury. Id. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment as to attorneys’ fees and remanded that part of the case to the trial court for a new trial. Id. at 548-49.

Old law:

        While the present case fits the exception to the general rule, we do not mean to imply that in every case when uncontradicted testimony is offered it mandates an award of the amount claimed.  For example, even though the evidence might be uncontradicted, if it is unreasonable, incredible, or its belief is questionable, then such evidence would only raise a fact issue to be determined by the trier of fact.  In order for the court to award an amount of attorneys' fees as a matter of law, the evidence from an interested witness must not be contradicted by any other witness or attendant circumstances and the same must be clear, direct and positive, and free from contradiction, inaccuracies and circumstances tending to case suspicion thereon.  The court, as a trier of fact, may award attorneys' fees as a matter of law in such circumstances, especially when the opposing party has the means and opportunity of disproving the testimony or evidence and fails to do so.  In default judgment situations, the same rule applies if there is evidence presented to the trial court which meets the same criteria.  In this situation the evidence may be uncontradicted, but the trial judge could find some of the claimed fees to be unreasonable, unwarranted, or some other circumstance which would make an award of the uncontroverted claim wrong.  In the present case it is clear that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only $150 in attorney's fees.  Ragsdale's attorneys testified as to the time involved, the nature of the services that were rendered, and the reasonableness of the fees charged.  This evidence was uncontroverted.  We hold the evidence is clear, direct and positive, and not contradicted by any other witness or attendant circumstances, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Tex. 1990)(emphasis added).