Opinion ID: 1718207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Litigation Giving Rise to the Fee Award

Text: In 1984 ACLU/EM undertook the sponsorship of an action on behalf of one D.C. against the City of St. Louis and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The suit challenged the city's masquerading ordinance, punishing a person who appeared in public in a dress not belonging to his or her sex ... . The plaintiff signed a retainer agreement in which he stated that he sought the services of ACLU/EM in the pursuit of his legal objectives. The provisions of the agreement are important in showing the nature of ACLU/EM'S involvement the client's understanding, and compliance with appropriate rules governing legal ethics, and so I quote pertinent provisions as follows:       I understand that I am represented by the lawyer named above, although the ACLU/EM is sponsoring my case.       The services of the lawyer will be provided to me free of charge. If my case is successful, the court may require the opponents to pay attorneys' fees and costs. I agree that any such award of fees or costs shall be paid in full to the ACLU/EM immediately upon my receipt of such award. ACLU/EM and I agree that I will retain any damages awarded to me after ACLU/EM is reimbursed for any costs not awarded to it by the court.       I also understand that I am free at any time to discharge the lawyer representing me (subject to court approval). However, if I choose to discharge my lawyer, the ACLU/EM is under no obligation to find a replacement or to continue its sponsorship of my case. Continued ACLU involvement in my case will be determined after consideration of all the circumstances that may exist at the time. The agreement listed the lawyer selected by ACLU/EM as Ms. Arlene Zarembka, an attorney in private practice in St. Louis. The defendant was later instructed by his employer to participate in the suit along with Ms. Zarembka. He signed the pleadings along with Zarembka, styling himself Staff Counsel, ACLU/EM. The litigation resulted in a judgment declaring the ordinance invalid. There was no monetary award. The defendant and Zarembka then prepared an application for attorneys' fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, [3] setting out the hours involved in detail. Before the application was ruled on, however, the defendant had resigned his employment with ACLU/EM in order to accept a judicial clerkship. He withdrew as counsel for the federal plaintiff and the fee application was pursued by Zarembka. The court sustained the application for an amount substantially less than the request. Its order stated that plaintiff is awarded $15,501.25 in attorneys' fees and $2729.79 in reasonable costs. In an accompanying memorandum the court stated that $7411. was awarded for Zarembka's services and $8,090.25 for the defendant's. The defendant then prevailed upon the City Counselor's office to procure a check payable to him for the portion of the award computed on the basis of his services. He did this without advising or seeking the assent either of his client or of his former employer.