Eleanor Finch
The question of whether a plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees for constitutional violations is a complex one and depends on the specific circumstances of each case. In the United States, the general rule, known as the American Rule, states that each party is responsible for paying their own attorney's fees. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and federal law gives the prevailing party in some civil rights cases the right to recover reasonable attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court has also held that attorneys' fees may be awarded in cases where the plaintiff prevails on a statutory, non-civil rights claim related to a substantial constitutional claim. Additionally, there are specific statutes, such as the Age Discrimination Act and certain Connecticut statutes, that authorize the court to award attorneys' fees in cases involving constitutional violations. The determination of whether a plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees often depends on factors such as the nature of the claim, the relief obtained, and the behavior and motivation of the defendant.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff entitled to attorneys' fees | If the plaintiff is the prevailing party and has won a final judgment, they are entitled to attorneys' fees. |
| Plaintiff as prevailing party | The plaintiff is the prevailing party if they have won tangible relief from a court order that is never undone on the merits. |
| Fee-shifting law | The federal fee-shifting law was intended to encourage attorneys to enter the fray against governments. |
| Constitutional violations | The plaintiff may be entitled to attorneys' fees if the defendant has violated the U.S. Constitution's provision on the establishment of religion. |
| State laws | In Connecticut, there are statutes that authorize civil actions based on constitutional violations and provide for the awarding of attorneys' fees. |
| Federal laws | Federal laws, such as the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), may allow for the plaintiff to recover attorneys' fees in certain circumstances. |
| Bad faith theory | Under the "bad faith" theory, a plaintiff may be awarded attorneys' fees if the defendant has willfully disobeyed a court order or acted in bad faith. |
| Common fund theory | According to the "common fund" theory, a plaintiff may be awarded attorneys' fees if their legal action creates or preserves a fund of money or obtains a benefit for others as well as themselves. |
| Limitations | There may be limitations on the amount of attorneys' fees that can be recovered, and the court may set a reasonable fee within these limits. |
| Frivolous lawsuits | In some cases, defendants may be awarded attorneys' fees if the plaintiff's lawsuit is deemed frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Plaintiffs who obtain temporary relief in civil rights cases
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the dispute over whether plaintiffs who obtain temporary relief in civil rights cases can be reimbursed for their attorneys' fees. The case, Lackey v. Stinnie, challenges the constitutionality of a Virginia law that required the state's department of motor vehicles to automatically suspend the licenses of drivers with unpaid court fines and fees without considering their ability to pay.
In most lawsuits, parties typically pay their legal fees. However, federal law allows the winning or 'prevailing' party in some civil rights cases to recover reasonable attorneys' fees. The definition of a 'prevailing' party is a contentious issue. The challengers in Lackey v. Stinnie argue that they are prevailing parties because a federal district judge granted their request for a preliminary injunction, which barred the state from enforcing the law against them while the litigation continued. The state, on the other hand, contends that winning a preliminary injunction does not qualify someone as a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for how civil rights cases are litigated and resolved in the future. Public-interest and advocacy groups argue that if attorneys' fees are not available for litigants who win preliminary injunctions, civil rights plaintiffs may struggle to find lawyers. They also warn that defendants could intentionally engage in drawn-out legal proceedings, knowing they can end the case before a final judgment is reached and thereby avoid attorneys' fee liability.
The Supreme Court's decision will provide clarity on the eligibility criteria for attorneys' fee reimbursement and guide future civil rights litigation.
Understanding Chapter 7: DMI and POA Requirements
You may want to see also
Prevailing party entitled to attorney fees
In the United States, federal law gives the prevailing party in some civil rights cases the right to recover reasonable attorneys' fees. However, the specific circumstances under which a plaintiff can be reimbursed for attorneys' fees remain a matter of dispute.
In the case of Maher v. Gagne, the plaintiff raised a constitutional claim that was settled favorably for them without reaching a trial. The Court held that under § 1988(b), a federal court may award attorneys' fees "in a case in which the plaintiff prevails on a wholly statutory, non-civil rights claim pendent to a substantial constitutional claim."
In another case, Smith v. Robinson, the plaintiffs requested the court to award fees under either the Rehabilitation Act or § 1988(b) after prevailing on the merits of their case. The Supreme Court held that they were not entitled to relief under either statute and therefore could not claim a fee award.
The Supreme Court has also restricted attorneys' fees awards to prevailing defendants only when the plaintiff's lawsuit is deemed "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation."
The determination of whether a party is "prevailing" and thus entitled to attorneys' fees can be complex. In Rhodes v. Stewart, the Supreme Court held that a declaratory judgment will constitute relief for purposes of § 1988(b) if it affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff.
The issue of attorneys' fees in civil rights cases has recently come before the Supreme Court in Lackey v. Stinnie, where plaintiffs obtained temporary relief and are seeking reimbursement for their attorneys' fees. The decision in this case could have a significant impact on how civil rights cases are litigated and resolved in the future.
In conclusion, while the prevailing party in certain cases may be entitled to attorneys' fees, the specific conditions under which such fees can be awarded vary and are subject to interpretation by the courts.
Jefferson's Constitution: Shaping America's Future
You may want to see also
Fee-shifting law encourages attorneys to act against governments
In the United States, federal law gives the prevailing party in some civil rights cases the right to recover reasonable attorneys' fees. However, the specific circumstances under which plaintiffs can be reimbursed for attorneys' fees remain disputed. This is particularly evident in the case of Lackey v. Stinnie, which has drawn significant attention due to its potential impact on how civil rights cases are litigated and resolved.
The dispute centres around whether plaintiffs who obtain temporary relief in a civil rights case can later be reimbursed for their attorneys' fees. The challengers argue that the federal fee-shifting law was intended to encourage attorneys to take on cases against governments. They contend that the law awards attorneys' fees to the prevailing party, which they define as the party that has won tangible relief from a court order, regardless of whether it is a preliminary injunction or a final judgment.
The challengers in the Lackey v. Stinnie case sought to have the state reimburse them for their attorneys' fees after successfully challenging a Virginia law that automatically suspended the licenses of drivers with unpaid court fines and fees. The Virginia law was deemed unconstitutional as it did not consider an individual's ability to pay. The challengers argued that they were the prevailing party because the district court had ordered the DMV to reinstate their licenses, regardless of the law's subsequent repeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed with the challengers, prompting the state to bring the case to the Supreme Court.
Virginia, on the other hand, argues that winning a preliminary injunction is not sufficient for a plaintiff to be entitled to attorneys' fees. They contend that a final judgment is necessary. Virginia warns that a ruling in favour of the challengers could discourage local governments from acting diligently. The federal government has also acknowledged concerns that government agencies might strategically dismiss litigation to avoid attorneys' fee liability.
The dispute highlights the complexities surrounding attorneys' fees in civil rights cases and the potential impact of fee-shifting laws on government accountability. While the challengers argue that fee-shifting encourages attorneys to take on cases against governments, others worry about the potential for abuse and the financial burden on local governments. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have significant implications for civil rights litigation and the interpretation of fee-shifting laws.
The Constitution: Weeks of Work Ahead
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Attorney fee petitions : suggestions for administration and management by Thomas E. Willging and Nancy A. Weeks. 1985 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61IX47b4r9L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Attorney fees awarded when a party acts in bad faith
In the United States, the general rule is that each party in a lawsuit must bear its own litigation costs and fees. This principle, known as the "American Rule", is based on the idea that the inherent uncertainty of litigation should not result in penalising individuals for initiating or defending a lawsuit. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and courts may award attorney fees on a contractual, statutory, or recognised equitable basis. One such exception is when a party acts in bad faith.
The inherent equitable powers of courts in the US authorise the award of attorney fees in cases of bad faith. This exception has been applied in marital dissolution cases, confirming the availability of reasonable attorney fees for both pre-litigation and litigation bad faith conduct. In the case of Dalton M, LLC v. N. Cascade Tr. Servs., Inc., the Washington Appellate Court held that the plaintiff could recover fees incurred due to the defendant's pre-litigation bad faith conduct. The defendant had wrongfully foreclosed on a parcel of land owned by the plaintiff, and despite acknowledging the mistake, failed to rectify it, forcing the plaintiff to take legal action.
The bad faith exception has been relatively narrowly applied, but it has the potential to expand to other types of claims. In Oregon, for example, the Court of Appeals rejected an ambiguous email settlement offer as insufficient to avoid attorney fee liability under ORS 20.080. This demonstrates an expansion of the bad faith exception beyond traditional claims.
While the bad faith exception allows courts to award attorney fees, it is important to note that the specific requirements for such an award may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case. In civil rights cases, for instance, federal law provides that the prevailing party may be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. However, there is ongoing debate about whether this applies only to final judgments or if preliminary injunctions that provide relief to plaintiffs are sufficient to qualify as a prevailing party.
Unlivable Conditions: Suffolk County's Legal Definition
You may want to see also
The US Supreme Court's power to restrict attorney fee awards
The US Supreme Court has the power to restrict attorney fee awards in certain cases. While federal law allows the prevailing party in some civil rights cases to recover reasonable attorney fees, the Court has interpreted this to mean that plaintiffs must have "established his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims". This was demonstrated in the case of Rhodes v. Stewart, where the Court held that a declaratory judgment would only constitute relief if it affected the defendant's behaviour towards the plaintiff.
The Court has also ruled that attorney fees can be awarded in cases involving a substantial constitutional claim, even if the constitutional issue is not reached. In Maher v. Gagne, the Court held that a federal court may award attorney fees under § 1988(b) in a case where the plaintiff prevails on a wholly statutory, non-civil rights claim, as long as it is pendent to a substantial constitutional claim or one in which both a statutory and constitutional claim are settled favourably for the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court has also restricted attorney fee awards to prevailing defendants only in cases where the plaintiff's lawsuit was deemed "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation". In James v. Boise, the Court reversed an award of attorney fees to a prevailing defendant in a Sec. 1983 lawsuit, as the plaintiff's claim was not considered to meet this standard.
The Court has provided guidance on determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded, stating that the court should allow reasonable fees within the limits set by Congress. This is typically calculated by multiplying the reasonable number of hours worked on a case by the reasonable hourly rate for counsel.
The Supreme Court has also recognised certain doctrines that allow for the awarding of attorney fees in specific situations. The "'common benefit' doctrine, for example, permits attorney fee awards when a party's legal action creates or preserves a fund of money or obtains a benefit for others and themselves. Additionally, the "private attorney general" doctrine provides for attorney fee awards when a plaintiff advances important public policy and benefits a large class of people.
In summary, the US Supreme Court does have the power to restrict attorney fee awards, primarily by interpreting and applying federal laws and doctrines that govern such awards. The Court considers factors such as the merits of the case, the nature of the claims, the behaviour of the parties, and the reasonableness of the fees when determining whether to restrict or allow attorney fee awards.
George Mason's Thoughts on Creating a New Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The "American Rule" states that each party must pay its own attorney's fees. However, there are numerous federal statutes that provide for attorney fee awards, such as the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
This is a disputed topic. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on this issue in the case of Lackey v. Stinnie. The case challenges the constitutionality of a Virginia law that allowed the state's department of motor vehicles to suspend the licenses of drivers with unpaid court fines and fees.
The two main grounds are the "bad faith" and "common fund" theories. The "bad faith" theory allows an award where a party has willfully disobeyed a court order or has "acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons." Under the "common fund" theory, a court may award attorney's fees to a party whose legal action creates or preserves a fund of money, or obtains a benefit, for others as well as itself.
