Detail your time entries Headlee lawyers, or you may win your Headlee claim only to wind up with a disappointed client. On third remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals in Adair v. Michigan denied all attorney fees because counsel were unable to show how much of the time they spent on the one Headlee claim in the 21-count complaint. Under the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, § 32, a taxpayer who sustains a Headlee suit is entitled to “costs incurred in maintaining such suit.” The Michigan Supreme Court has held this includes a reasonable attorney fee. The party seeking reimbursement must prove that the requested fee was incurred in maintaining the Headlee claim, and that the fee is reasonable under the framework in Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich. 519, 751 N.W.2d (2008). But the attorneys could not satisfy that burden here. First, they could not specifically identify the time spent on the Headlee claim, as opposed to the other 2o claims brought against the state before the first remand. Second, they offered only their own opinion testimony on the reasonableness of their fees after the first remand—no credible surveys or other reliable evidence showing the customary fee charged in their locality. And finally, they were not entitled to attorney fees under Headlee for their post-judgment services following the second remand. As to other costs, the court disagreed with the special master’s position that such costs are not limited to those in the neutral provisions of the Michigan Court Rules and Revised Judicature Act. It therefore remanded to the special master for more generous assessment of the costs incurred in maintaining the Headlee claim, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Macomb County Taxpayers Association v L’Anse Creuse Public School, 455 Mich. 1, 564 N.W.2d 457 (1997).