Opinion ID: 173300
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions for Attorneys’ Fees

Text: The Thorpes’ attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a response to the order to show cause on his own behalf, alleging the Thorpes had assured him of the verity of their claims and he only intended to zealously represent his clients. The Thorpes retained different counsel, who filed a response to the order to show cause on their behalf. In their response to the order to show cause, the Thorpes asserted the summary judgment result was not due to the lack of evidence but solely to their attorney’s mishandling of the case. They averred their lawyer had not presented critical evidence in the summary judgment response but, had he done so, the result of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment would have been different. They argued they had not seen the -7- pleadings before the order to show cause but relied on their attorney to handle their claims. Nonetheless, the Thorpes did not disavow any of the allegations. Sheriff Defendants filed a motion seeking $65,060 in attorneys’ fees for their defense of the Thorpes’ federal claims commencing on August 11, 2003, the day after the Thorpes received the affidavits attached to the Sheriff Defendants’ first motion to dismiss. Police Defendants also moved for $88,392.50 in attorneys’ fees commencing on February 11, 2005, the day the district court dismissed the Thorpes’ state law claims. In response to the Defendants’ specific requests for attorneys’ fees, the Thorpes again blamed their former attorney for failing to present evidence. Attached to the response were more than one hundred pages of exhibits primarily attacking the veracity of the individual Defendants.7 The Thorpes relied on the Stone Report to demonstrate their lawsuit was not frivolous. They also continued to insist deliberate fabrications and omissions in the affidavits supporting the arrest and search warrants vitiated probable cause. Unconvinced, the district court ordered the Thorpes to pay the fees requested by Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).8 7 The exhibits included material from the personnel files of Tyer, Ancell, and Culver. They also included a letter from Currie to Waite inquiring whether Waite was going forward with the prosecution. 8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the court held the Thorpes’ original attorney jointly liable for the fees incurred after Defendants filed their motions for summary judgment. The attorney filed a separate appeal (No. 06-1405) but the appeal was withdrawn following an agreement with Defendants. -8-