Opinion ID: 853347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Jurisdictions Have Mixed Views

Text: States Adopting the Exception. A number of state high courts have adopted the private attorney general exception. [6] One widely-cited case is Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25, 141 Cal.Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303 (1977), in which the California Supreme Court recognized the exception because: In the complex society in which we live it frequently occurs that citizens in great numbers and across a broad spectrum have interests in common. These, while of enormous significance to the society as a whole, do not involve the fortunes of a single individual to the extent necessary to encourage their private vindication in the courts. Although there are within the executive branch of the government offices and institutions (exemplified by the Attorney General) whose function it is to represent the general public in such matters and to ensure proper enforcement, for various reasons the burden of enforcement is not always adequately carried by those offices and institutions, rendering some sort of private action imperative. Because the issues involved in such litigation are often extremely complex and their presentation time-consuming and costly, the availability of representation of such public interests by private attorneys acting pro bono publico is limited. Id., 141 Cal.Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d at 1313. [7] New Hampshire was among the most recent to adopt the private attorney general doctrine, in Claremont School District v. Governor, 144 N.H. 590, 761 A.2d 389 (1999)(fees sought following declaratory judgment that the state public education funding system was unconstitutional). The New Hampshire Supreme Court observed that proportional and reasonable taxation is one of the core constitutional foundations of this State and held that [t]he public interest in preserving constitutional rights against governmental infringement is paramount. Only private citizens can be expected to `guard the guardians.' Because the benefits of this litigation flow to all members of the public, the plaintiffs should not have to bear the entire cost of this litigation. Id. at 393-94. States Rejecting the Exception. Likewise, a number of states have rejected the private attorney general doctrine. [8] Chief Justice Minzner of the New Mexico Supreme Court expressed these concerns: Unbridled judicial authority to pick and choose which plaintiffs and causes of action merit an award of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine would not promote equal access to the courts for the resolution of good faith disputes inasmuch as it lacks sufficient guidelines to prevent courts from treating similarly situated parties differently and could easily result in decisions that favor a particular class of private litigants while unduly discouraging the government from mounting a good faith defense. Such authority also would not promote the goal of conserving judicial resources inasmuch as it calls for the courts to engage in a fact-specific reexamination of the merits of a case to determine the significance and scope of the rights that have been protected. N.M. Right to Choose v. Johnson, 127 N.M. 654, 986 P.2d 450, 459 (1999) (citations omitted).