Opinion ID: 2119520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiff's Status as a Pro Se Attorney

Text: The plain language of section 11(h) does not preclude an award of fees to a pro se attorney. The legislative history of the statute does not address the issue directly. Statements by the FOIA's chief sponsor indicate that the broad purpose of the fee provision is to enforce the statute. Representative Currie stated: The point of the attorneys' fees Section is really to encourage citizens to act rather like a private attorney general. The concept    really encourages the public to ... to have the opportunity to make sure that this Bill, freedom of information, can be enforced. (83d Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, Oct. 20, 1983, at 44 (statements of Representative Currie).) No Illinois case has addressed the issue presented. In addition, no Illinois case has addressed whether a nonlawyer plaintiff proceeding pro se may recover attorney fees. In the absence of express language on the issue in either the statute itself or its legislative history, we look to the fee provision of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides: The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (1982). Four of the circuit courts of appeals have considered the question whether pro se attorneys may recover fees under the Federal FOIA; the cases are evenly divided. Compare Aronson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (1st Cir.1989), 866 F.2d 1 (fees denied); Falcone v. Internal Revenue Service (6th Cir.1983), 714 F.2d 646 (same), with Cazalas v. United States Department of Justice (5th Cir.1983), 709 F.2d 1051 (fees granted); Cuneo v. Rumsfeld (D.C. Cir.1977), 553 F.2d 1360 (same). Initially we note that with the exception of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, all of the circuit courts of appeals that have considered the question have held that a nonlawyer pro se litigant is not entitled to fees. (See Aronson, 866 F.2d at 4 (collecting cases).) Those circuits that have denied fees to pro se lawyers in FOIA cases conclude that there is no good reason for treating pro se lawyers any differently than pro se laypersons. ( Aronson, 866 F.2d at 5; accord Falcone, 714 F.2d at 647.) Whether a nonlawyer pro se litigant may recover attorney fees under the Illinois FOIA is a question that is not before us, and we express no opinion on the matter. The courts in Aronson and Falcone reached their conclusions for essentially the same reasons. First, the award of fees is intended to relieve plaintiffs of the burden of legal costs; it is not intended as either a reward for plaintiffs or a penalty against the government. Since a pro se lawyer incurs no legal costs, the intent of the fee provision would not be served by granting fees to pro se lawyers. Second, the fee provision encourages plaintiffs to seek out legal advice in order to prevent unwarranted litigation. Although a pro se lawyer may have the requisite legal skills, he or she may lack the objectivity necessary to meet the aims of the statute. Third, the fee provision might be used by lawyers with an inactive practice solely to generate fees. Aronson, 866 F.2d at 4, citing Falcone, 714 F.2d at 647-48. The court in Aronson also addressed the rationales given by those courts that have reached the opposite result. First, the court did not agree that the purpose of the fee provision is to deter and punish the government for wrongfully withholding information. ( Aronson, 866 F.2d at 5.) Moreover, those persons making the decision to refuse to release information will not be punished, since the fees will come out of public funds. Aronson, 866 F.2d at 5. Second, the court in Aronson was unpersuaded by the argument that an attorney incurs legal costs to the extent the attorney is unable to devote time to his or her own practice. A nonlawyer pro se litigant in a FOIA case must also devote time to his or her case, and there is no reason to treat lawyers differently from other professionals whose stock in trade is time and advice. 866 F.2d at 5. Third, the court was of the opinion that allowing fees to a pro se lawyer would be to allow the lawyer to recover for a non-performed service. 866 F.2d at 6. Finally, the court thought it unseemly to treat pro se lawyers differently from pro se nonlawyers, since to allow the former but not the latter to recover fees creates the appearance that courts are especially solicitous for the economic welfare of lawyers. 866 F.2d at 6. The Fifth Circuit in Cazalas reached the opposite conclusion. First, the court addressed the argument that the policy of access to government records is not furthered by an award of fees since a pro se attorney will not have out-of-pocket legal expenses that will deter the attorney from pursuing a FOIA action. The court responded that the attorney in the case before it amply demonstrated the costs she incurred, both from other work forgone and in terms of personal energy. These were precisely the sort of expenses that might deter a less determined litigant. Cazalas, 709 F.2d at 1056. Second, the court in Cazalas found little evidence to support the argument that the fee provision's purpose is to ensure objective legal representation. Rather, according to the court, the legislative history supports the view that the fee provision is designed to promote vigorous advocacy on behalf of citizens seeking government information. (Emphasis in original.) 709 F.2d at 1056, citing S. Rep. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 17-19 (1974). Third, the court rejected the notion that granting fees to pro se lawyers will engender abusive fee generation. Where a FOIA request is legitimate, the government should promptly release the information and no fee will be necessary. On the other hand, where the government has a colorable basis for withholding documents, the plaintiff ordinarily will not be entitled to fees. 709 F.2d at 1056; see Blue v. Bureau of Prisons (5th Cir.1978), 570 F.2d 529, 533 (one of the criteria for allowing fees is whether the government had a reasonable basis in law for withholding requested records). Fourth, the court cited several reasons for treating pro se lawyers differently from nonlawyer pro se litigants. Congress sought to encourage legal representation; thus, it makes sense to compensate lawyers for the legal work they perform when they represent themselves. In addition, it is relatively simple to measure the fees incurred where the pro se litigant is an attorney, for the work forgone is of the same nature as that actually performed. This is not the case for nonattorney pro se litigants. 709 F.2d at 1057. Finally, the contrary view fail[s] to come to terms with the fee provision's raison d'etre. (709 F.2d at 1057.) The court identified three policies served by the fee provision. First, it acts as an incentive for private individuals to pursue vigorously their requests for information by removing barriers, particularly the need for legal fees and legal expertise, that the government may erect in an effort to avoid complying with the law. This same incentive is necessary where an attorney seeking information utilizes his or her own skills. Second and third, the provision is designed to deter the government from opposing justifiable requests, and to punish the government where such opposition is unreasonable. 709 F.2d at 1057. The appellate court in the case at bar reviewed the foregoing arguments. It then concluded, without analysis, that the reasoning of the Cazalas court was more cogent than that of the Falcone court. It added that it saw nothing in the fee provision of the Illinois FOIA which would render the Cazalas court's reasoning inapplicable to petitions for fees brought by pro se attorneys under that statute. (171 Ill. App.3d at 900.) We disagree. First, as we have explained, the legislative history of the Illinois fee provision shows that the purpose of the provision is to ensure enforcement of the FOIA. This is accomplished by removing the burden of legal fees, which might deter litigants from pursuing legitimate FOIA actions. We do not think the provision was intended as either a reward for successful plaintiffs or as a punishment against the government. (See Falcone, 714 F.2d at 647.) A lawyer representing himself or herself simply does not incur legal fees. Thus legal fees do not present a barrier to a pro se lawyer seeking to obtain information. Second, we think it is self-evident that one of the goals of the Illinois fee provision is to avoid unnecessary litigation by encouraging citizens to seek legal advice before filing suit. (See Falcone, 714 F.2d at 647.) We agree with the courts in Aronson and Falcone that the lack of objectivity that results from self-representation will not further this goal. Finally, we think that the fear of abusive fee generation is not unreasonable. We do not suggest that plaintiff in the case at bar has engaged in such fee generation. Plaintiff attempted to avoid litigation for nearly a year, even though, under the terms of the statute, he could have brought suit much earlier. Moreover, there is no evidence that plaintiff, a member of a large Chicago law firm, has an inactive practice. Nevertheless, we do not think it advisable to leave the door open for unscrupulous attorneys. We recognize that under section 11(h) of the statute, in order to be awarded fees, it must be shown that the plaintiff has substantially prevailed, that the records are of clearly significant interest to the general public, and that the public body lacked any rational basis in law for withholding the records. However, we do not think that these safeguards against fee generation, as plaintiff terms these provisions, address the potential problem directly. The most effective way to deter potential abusive fee generation is to deny fees to lawyers representing themselves. For these reasons, we hold that an attorney proceeding pro se in an action brought under the Illinois FOIA is not entitled to an award of fees under that statute. In light of this disposition, we need not address defendants' second contention concerning the attorney fees issue.