In Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, the court stated that whether to award fees under section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a matter within the trial court's discretion, but that reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or where the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied. (Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, at p. 634.) The court found that the trial court erred in its determination that the plaintiff's lawsuit conferred a significant benefit on a large class of persons, since its primary effect was the vindication of the plaintiff's personal right and economic interest. (Id. at pp. 636-637.) The court also found that the trial court had not applied the correct standards in determining the amount of the award, including the reasonable hourly rate component of the lodestar and whether a multiplier was warranted under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.). (Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, at p. 647.) The court reaffirmed that contingent risk is a factor to be considered, as required by Serrano v. Priest (1977). The court acknowledged that enhancement of the lodestar for contingent risk was not permitted under federal fee-shifting statutes and that the United States Supreme Court's criticisms of the contingent risk factor were persuasive but held it was bound to follow Serrano and include the contingent nature of the case among the factors in determining whether to enhance the lodestar. The Flannery court nonetheless reversed the trial court's application of a multiplier on the basis that the trial court had not applied the correct standards in determining the amount of the award. (Flannery, at 61 Cal.App.4th p. 647.)