Opinion ID: 387362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Encouraging Injured Plaintiffs or Encouraging Lawyers?

Text: 276 Aside from the extraordinary financial results from the majority's theory, we have a fundamental disagreement with our colleagues as to the philosophy underlying the award of attorney's fees to prevailing litigants. 277 It is plain that our nation's policy-both legislative and judicial-is to promote the efforts of so-called private attorneys general who vindicate our civil rights laws by seeking legal redress for Title VII plaintiffs' injuries. It is necessary, then, that litigation expenses constitute no barrier that discourages these private plaintiffs from bringing their grievances before the courts. Eliminating the barrier of attorney's fees encourages plaintiffs to assert their legal and civil rights. 278 But encouraging injured plaintiffs is a goal distinct from that of encouraging lawyers with the lure of attorney's fees bonanzas. 32 The majority's philosophy appears to be solicitous of the sellers of legal services beyond the needs of the buyers of these services. The majority appears to believe that its market value formula must award attorney's fees which match the petitioning lawyers' highest opportunity costs. Neither lawyers nor other purveyors of products and services operate on the basis of achieving highest opportunity costs most of the time; by definition, the usual-and entirely satisfactory-reward is less. It seems clear that the mandated encouragement to plaintiffs is achieved by granting the lawyers a sum reflecting their actual cost plus a reasonable profit, as opposed to an award which reflects the highest rates of return that alternative applications of legal manpower and resources could command. 279 It is simply not invidious to conclude that the fee schedule acceptable to General Motors when confronting a possible billion dollar liability is not necessarily applicable in Title VII attorney's fees determinations. Our cost-plus method brooks no disservice to Title VII private attorneys general. On the other hand, overcoming the legal expense barrier for these private plaintiffs requires no windfall for lawyers-only that it be worth their lawyers' while. 33 This is what our view of attorney's fees awards accomplishes: service for the plaintiffs without the need for lawyers to sacrifice. 34 The inevitable existence of some other opportunities for lawyers to gain relatively higher remuneration does not mean that all legal services-including purported pro bono work-must be compensated at the very highest figure discoverable.