Legal Document

475 U.S. 717 106 S.Ct. 1531 89 L.Ed.2d 747 John V. EVANS, et al., Petitionersv.JEFF D. al. No. 84-1288. Argued Nov. 13, 1985. Decided April 21, 1986. Rehearing Denied June 9, See 476 1179, 2909. Syllabus The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 (Fees Act) provides that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . a reasonable attorney's fee" enumerated civil rights actions. Respondents brought class action against petitioners (the Governor and other public officials Idaho responsible for education treatment mentally handicapped children) Federal District Court on behalf children who have been or will be placed petitioners' care. It was alleged deficiencies both educational programs health care services provided respondents violated State Constitutions various federal state statutes. Injunctive relief an award costs fees were sought. Ultimately, approved settlement granting injunctive sought conditional respondents' waiver any claim fees. Appeals invalidated fee waiver, left standing remainder settlement, remanded to determine what reasonable, holding historical background Rule Procedure 23(e), which gives district court power approve settlements actions, Act, compelled conclusion stipulated obtained solely as condition obtaining should not accepted by court. Held: 1. had power, Pp. 730-738. (a) language well legislative history, indicates Congress bestowed "prevailing party" statutory eligibility discretionary specified Neither statute nor history suggests intended forbid all waivers neither awards upon attorneys rendered them nonwaivable nonnegotiable; instead, it added remedies available combat violations, goal invariably inconsistent with conditioning merits 730-732. (b) A general proscription exchange would itself impede vindication rights, at least some cases, reducing attractiveness settlement. is implausible anticipate parties significant number cases refuse settle if liability remained open, thereby forcing more trial, unnecessarily burdening judicial system, disserving litigants. 732-738. 2. did abuse discretion approving secured broad greater than could reasonably expected achieve trial. There nothing record indicate has adopted statute, policy, practice insisting litigation conflict Act. Nor does request waive vindicative effort deter from representing plaintiffs suits Idaho. 738-743. 743 F.2d 648 (CA9 1984), reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, filed dissenting opinion, MARSHALL BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 743. James Thomas Jones, Boise, Idaho, petitioners. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, special leave support William T. Coleman, Jr., respondents. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In Maher v. Gagne, 448 122, 100 2570, 65 653 (1980), we held assessed after case settled entry consent decree. this case, consider question whether must when decree prospective plaintiff but providing defendants shall pay part party's costs. We hold sound 2 * are suffer emotional mental handicaps. such care.1 3 On August 4, 1980, commenced filing complaint United States factual allegations described These allegedly Constitution, four statutes, certain provisions Code. prayed fees, seek damages. 4 day filed, entered two orders, one proceed forma pauperis, second appointing Charles Johnson their next friend sole purpose instituting prosecuting action. At time employed Legal Aid Society, Inc., private, nonprofit corporation free legal qualified low-income persons.2 Because Society prohibited clients capable paying own fees,3 made no agreement requiring through Johnson. Moreover, character attorney-client relationship explains why enter into covering contingencies might arise during course negotiations kind. 5 Shortly answer, before substantial work done negotiations. They able reach concerning relating relative ease and, October 14, 1981, stipulation disposing case. each bear "own thus far incurred." App. 54. promptly order partial 6 Negotiations claims broke down, however, cross-motions summary judgment. Although dismissed several claims, constitutional raised genuine issues fact resolved Thereafter, certification order, engaged discovery, otherwise prepared try spring 1983. 7 March 1983, week presented new proposal. As themselves characterize it, proposal "offered virtually [they] complaint." Brief 5. 89. agreed characterization, further noted proposed "more earlier hearings indicated willing grant." 648, 650 1984). true offer included provision costs.4 Originally, unacceptable instructed reject conditioned ultimately determined his ethical obligation mandated acceptance approval Court.5 8 After signed, written motion requesting "except fees," present bill consideration 87. oral argument motion, contended exploited duty clients—that he "forced," giving best result gotten court," fees.6 evaluated context entire rejected underpinnings Johnson's argument. Explaining although "not concede they obligated [make changes practices required stipulation], do long outlined didn't face additional costs," concluded "it doesn't violate considerations attorney give up interest getting better bargain client[s]." Id., 93. Accordingly, denied submit bill. 9 When appealed denying costs, suspend stay comply substantive terms regarded material term complete granted motion.7 Appeals, emergency motions stays enforcement pending appeal. More dramatically, ordering preliminary relief, settlement; then "make determination reasonable" limited purpose. F.2d, 652. 10 explaining holding, emphasized 23(e) Rules actions,8 strong policy embodied normally requires including those prevailed settlement.9 "[w]hen negotiated frequently exists between lawyers' compensation members' relief." 651-652. "To avoid conflict," relied Circuit precedent "disapproved simultaneous negotiation fees" absent showing "unusual circumstances." 652.10 found circumstances" therefore "should class." Ibid. concluded: 11 "The 23 section 1988, our experience since enactment, compel court." importance decided together decision decisions Courts Appeals,11 led us grant certiorari. 471 1098, 105 2319, 85 838 (1985). now reverse. II 12 disagreement amici exactly issue makes appropriate put aspects side precisely present. 13 To begin with, Appeals' rested erroneous view Court's wisely action, trial authorize require accept agreed. changed circumstances justify court-ordered modification over objections entered,12 advised unless deleted modified, advance modify either objection.13 options essentially same respondents: postponed see different achieved; enforce anymore could, situation large expense class, preserve merits. decide, therefore, because statutorily authorized 14 That duty, takes form prophylactic rule arises out derives rather strictures professional ethics. contend Johnson, counsel faced "ethical dilemma" offered him obtain (if only stipulate award), recognize conflicting interests pursuing believe "dilemma" "ethical" sense choose duties under norms conduct. Plainly, award. His serve loyally competently.14 Since favorable probable outcome recommend consistent highest standards profession. correctly involved breach ethics 15 defect, any, traced rules Act.15 Following tack, argue construed product "coercion." "coercive waiver" results defendant (1) offers equal value expect (2) conditions plaintiffs' Such offer, claim, exploits defendant's opponents' costs.16 16 presents, then, disapprove seeking equals exceeds expressly For reasons set below, persuaded commanded facts satisfied waiver. III 17 text proposition ban connection merits.17 contrary, " (generally plaintiffs18) actions.19 prevent waiving legislated assignment right attorney, effectively occurred here. Instead, enacted fee-shifting "an integral necessary obtain" compliance laws, S.Rep. 94-1011, (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, 5912, purpose—promotion respect rights—that provide damages relief. nowhere suggest fees—even insisted indisputably entitled20—anymore bar concession secure broader Thus, while undoubtedly shifting attract competent represent citizens deprived rights,21 arsenal violations fees.22 18 fact, Of particular relevance regard recent Marek Chesny, 473 1, 3012, 87 admittedly implicate court's specifically considered contention actions treated differently purposes THE CHIEF JUSTICE explained benefits Act: 19 "There evidence, Congress, considering thought footing insofar concerned. Indeed, clear concern penalized 'helping lessen docket congestion' settling H.R.Rep. 94-1558, supra, 7. 20 ". Some receive where, recovered, recovered less offered. And, even prevail date without burdens, stress, litigation. short, defendants." 10, S.Ct., 3017. 21 promote implicitly acknowledged Chesny possibility tradeoff upheld lump-sum 22 package recognized prohibiting comprehensive outstanding preclude cases: "If allowed make would, accepted, total liability, understandably reluctant offers. observed, 'many unwilling binding exposed whatever amount fix plaintiff.' 720 [474], 477 [ (CA7 1983) ]." 6-7, 3015. 24 White New Hampshire Dept. Employment Security, 455 445, 454, n. 15, 102 1162, 1167, 71 325 (1982) ("In good reason demand know fees"). 25 Most unlikely cost predicted judgment, discounted probability, plus transaction litigation, package. If cannot negotiated, contain component potentially typically uncertain magnitude, else agree fixed these alternatives acceptable many there surely alternative satisfactory case.23 26 adverse impact removing bargaining tolerable uncertainty introduced small. But not. defendants' potential kind can as, sometimes than, This most dramatically illustrated courts monetary relief.24 difficult compare seldom reported opinions, here too awarded "frequently outrun economic successful litigants." 122 Cong.Rec. 31472 (1976) (remarks Sen. Kennedy).25 very "[c]ounsel view[ed] risk case." Defendants Support Approval Compromise Jeff Evans, 80-4091 (D.Idaho), Undoubtedly overshadow darken prospects negotiated. 27 unpredictability just important magnitude striving liability. Unlike ordinarily involve smaller outlays susceptible calculation, 7, 3015, "[t]here precise formula" determining Hensley Eckerhart, 461 424, 436, 103 1933, 1941, 76 40 (1983).26 Among considerations, hours expended expenditure light success obtained, id., 440, 1943, hourly rate rendered. also "multiplier" adjustment appropriate. consequence succession necessarily judgmental ultimate inescapable: opponent's sufficient degree confidence indifferent exclusion negotiation.27 remains open,28 Respondents' eloquent testimony utility vindicating claims.29 conclude, construe embodying faithful Act.30 IV 28 abused earlier, among members class—in example, possible primarily interested improved care—fully justifies requirement approval. 29 respondents, supporting position, authority pass settlements, invoked ensure fair members, exercised accordance availability cases. Specifically, assert valid precluding payment applies. 24, 22. From equally adoption uniform state-wide serves end, accordingly authorizing parties, way settlement.31 Remarkably, seems little points. Petitioners never place stamp every Solicitor General, suggested need "no realistic defense merits," Amicus Curiae Supporting Reversal 23, 9; 26-27,32 "vindictive teach bring cases," Tr. Oral Arg. 30 find unnecessary evaluate argument, practice. narrower vindictive requested early understand challenging 31-32, prove tactics merely implemented routine designed frustrate objectives Our examination reveals policy. 31 record, must—to sustain judgment favor—confront finding extensive structural constituted adequate quid pro quo fees.33 overturn finding. option rejecting attempt negotiate served justice. Only making unsupported assumption respondent entitled retain portions conclude acted unwisely. 32 What illustrates given victims powerful weapon improves ability employ counsel, access courts, thereafter vindicate means aught appears, "coercive" effect motivated exceptionally generous offer. Whether like another question,34 event equipped answer. Thus far, Legislature paid whenever settled. Unless command, rely appraise reasonableness class-action case-by-case basis, relevant circumstances.35 upholding trial.36 33 34 so ordered. 35 whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 36 laws really counts. mind 1988 (Act Act). improve legislation easier lawyers take today's assistance, plainly contrary Congress' purpose, I dissent. 37 begins analysis emphasizing supports merits." Ante, 730. agree. evidence gave all. However, mistakenly assumes omission somehow permissible. tells absolutely about ought permitted. blackletter law "[i]n absence specific Congressional intent, becomes resort behind th[e] provision. ." Brooklyn Savings Bank O'Neil, 324 697, 706, 895, 902, L.Ed. 1296 (1945); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction §§ 54.01-54.03 (4th ed. interpret purpose; "plainly variance whole," Ozawa States, 260 178, 194, 43 65, 67, 67 199 (1922), correct. Watt Western Nuclear, 462 36, 56, 2218, 2229, 400 (1983) (statute interpreted "to produce odds underlying statute" "in overriding objective"); 46.07; Freeman, How. 556, 565, 44 724 (1845); Sorrells 287 435, 446, 53 210, 214, 77 413 (1932); Brown, 333 18, 25-26, 68 376, 379-380, 92 442 (1948); Lynch Overholser, 369 705, 710, 82 1063, 1067, 211 (1962); Perry Commerce Loan Co., 383 392, 399-400, 86 852, 856-857, 827 (1966) (quoting American Trucking Assns., 310 534, 543, 60 1059, 84 1345 (1940)); Campos-Serrano, 404 293, 298, 471, 474, 457 (1971). first asked enacting 38 asserts 731. told, simply addition rights." 732. 39 Obviously, "promote hardly securities laws. discourse level generality deceptive. how envision awarding rights? Without understanding operate, responsibly go task interpreting it. theory, make-whole threat rights" deterring violators. equation wholly inaccurate. discloses Rather, afford fulfill role scheme "private general," interest.1 Before late 1960's, concept nonexistent. Newman Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 400, 88 964, 1263 (1968) (per curiam ), called Title recently 1964, 2000a-3(b). recover unjust. Noting 1964 passed, evident Nation private securing law," "[a] suit only." Newman, 401, 966. obtains "does himself alone 'private general,' priority." 402, 966 (footnote omitted). conferred public-enforcement mechanism operate effectively: 41 routinely forced attorneys' few aggrieved position invoking powers courts. fees—not penalize litigants deliberately arguments untenable but, broadly, encourage individuals injured racial discrimination II." bridge gap desire individual vindicated financial so. importantly, erect solely, primarily, confer benefit individuals. capitalize happy coincidence encouraging run, effective II. By ensuring lawsuit violating real, lower courts—invoking equitable fees—adopted similar rationale statutes express See, e.g., Stolberg Members Board Trustees Colleges Conn., 474 485 (CA2 1973) (42 1983); Donahue Staunton, 1972), cert. denied, 410 955, 93 1419, 687 (1973) (same); Lee Southern Home Sites Corp., 444 143 (CA5 1971) 1982). generally Derfner, One Giant Step: St. Louis U.L.J. 441, 443, nn. 9-22 (1977) (citing cases). May 1975, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Wilderness 421 240, 95 1612, 141, ruled ground interest. recognizing "Congress opted heavily implement litigation," "congressional utilization private-attorney-general Judiciary deem furthered enough warrant award." 263, 1624. ruled, name 269-271, 1627-1629. wake Alyeska, correct "anomalous gaps" (hereafter S.Rep.).2 H.R.Rep.); Kennedy). Testimony disclosed plaintiffs, "a vast majority [whom] counsel," H.R. Rep. suffering "very severe hardships decision," unavailability impossible aid services, "already short resources," lawsuits, much compensation, refusing 3. Hearings Effect Adequacy Representation Subcommittee Citizen Interests Senate Committee Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., pts. 1-4 (1973). "devastating" corrective "compelling." 3; also, Cong.Rec., 31471 Scott), 45 Accepting invitation, 1627-1629, passed reestablish regime manifests monotonous clarity. instance, Report House notes "[T]he depends largely efforts citizens. agencies responsibilities, resources limited." explains, quoting 'does highest' importance." 966). describes scope operation concluding: 46 application insure involving avoiding windfalls attorneys. [the Act] acts, intended, uniformity justice citizens." 9. 47 themes prominent Report: 48 simple—it familiar remedy acts 1866. All depend enforcement, proved essential meaningful opportunity policies contain." 49 quotes Report, "fees policies." citing existing provisions, sets Committee's "[t]hese enabling vigorous modern legislation, limiting growth bureaucracy." 4. concludes: become mere hollow pronouncements average citizen enforce, maintain traditionally cases." 6. 50 floor debates, extensive, replete expressions; examples. Senator Tunney, sponsored original version stated Senate: 51 problem unequal congressional Encouraging representation enforced. passes great deal lofty promising 52 "Although enforced Department agencies, responsibility rest citizens, violation law. exist paper. Private resources. resources, him; seeks goes unvindicated; Nation, citizen, suffers." 33313 (1976). Kennedy, amended actually point somewhat succinctly: "Long demonstrated Government accomplish [compliance laws]. directly affected continue full support. Fee Government." 31472. 54 perhaps Representative Anderson, responding opponent summed effectively. He said: 55 "We talking major obligation, me, representatives people, sure discharge Those abetting aiding process bill." 35116. Scott) ("Congress protect rights"), 35128 Seiberling). 56 review clear, violations.3 primary enable general" creating incentives them. assertion whole thrust legislation. above plaintiff.4 57 gone lengths show mischaracterizes error leads ask wrong question. Having creates asks "invariably inconsistent" plaintiffs. Not surprisingly, difficulty knocking down frail straw man.5 proper permitting attracting counsel. allowing waivers. 58 Permitting raises related distinct questions. First, permissible simultaneously merits? Second, "reasonable guaranteed waived? matter logic, permitted other. bifurcated phase Alternatively, permit prohibit latter range Cf. Blum Stenson, 465 886, 104 1541, 79 891 (1984); 433-437, 1939-1942, (1983); 8-9; 6; Georgia Highway Express, 488 714, 716-720 1974) (listing factors).6 59 effects analyzed independently Unfortunately, overlooks logical independence ante, 734-738, 28. result, discussion conflates practices, use coming resolution An independent me conclude: Act; undertake "reasonable" B obvious diminish expectations receiving decrease willingness Even acknowledges away may, aggregate 741-742, 34. us, "[c]omment issue" "premature juncture" yet "documentation." anyway observe "as practical likelihood circumstance arising remote." 61 say assertions understand. sure, restriction created Alyeska. indication immediate hardship suffered claimants reduction awards.7 numerous commentators disincentives assistance. Moore National Assn. Securities Dealers, 246 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 133-134, 762 1093, 1112-1113 (Wald, concurring judgment) 138, 1117 (Wright, dissenting) (1985); Shadis Beal, 685 824, 830-831 (CA3), sub nom. O'Bannon Shadis, 459 970, 300, 74 282 (1982); Kraus, Vill.L.Rev., 625, 633-638; Comment, Settlement Offers Conditioned Upon Waiver Attorneys' Fees: Policy, Legal, Ethical Considerations, 131 U.Pa.L.Rev. 793, 814-816 Professional Judicial Ethics York City Bar Association, Op. 80-94, reprinted Record N.Y.C.B.A. 507, 508-509 (1981). 62 sociological study common sense. Assume includes plaintiff's alone, lawyer abide decision. ABA, Model Conduct 1.2(a) Code Responsibility EC 7-7 7-9 (1982).8 formal matter, course, belongs plaintiff, 730, 19, technically entails sacrifice plaintiff. affects lawyer. violations" 1,9 hope entirely compensation.10 real stake unaffected Lipscomb Wise, 643 319, 320 1981) ). Consequently, readily help desire.11 Columbia Bar: 63 "Defense uniquely fee: resist resist." 147, 113 Daily Washington Reporter, supra 8, 394. 64 lawyer's standpoint, things scarcely turned worse. she invested considerable won, Is serious suggesting when, following week, enters office representation? Does truly somebody conduct test having scarce feel pinch fee? once permitted, minimize remiss proposes client end failed fundamental zealously client. affect attractive waived. future, demands fees.12 66 cumulative evident. denigrate high ideals motivate practitioners business practicing law, that, concerned earning living.13 seriously impair assistance embarrassingly obvious. opposite prohibited. prior occasions party, affecting interest, waived released release contravenes policy." 704, 900 (holding liquidated Fair Labor Standards nonwaivable). Boyd Grand Trunk R. 338 266, 70 26, 27, 94 (1949) venue Employers' Liability nonwaivable); Wilko Swan, 346 427, 434-438, 182, 186-189, 98 168 (1953) void arbitrate lieu Exchange Act); cf. Mobile, 689 1357, 1359 (CA11 1982) (implying Truth-in-Lending policies). straightforward well-established principle unenforceable. Restatement (Second) Contracts 178 (1981); 903; Crites, Inc. Prudential Insurance 322 408, 418, 1075, 1081, 1356 (1944); Weil Neary, 278 160, 171-174, 144, 148-150, 73 243 (1929); Woodstock Iron Richmond Danville Extension 129 643, 662-663, 408-409, 819 (1889).14 puzzling reaches result. "parties settle. 736. inadequate justification 69 desirable judicially applicable force cases.15 is, argued throughout, create devote economically feasible Supra, 745-753.16 above, significantly undercuts discourage favoring possibly precedence agenda, own. elevate concerns, argues "provides Act" '[s]ome offered.' 732-733 3017, (1985)); 731 (legislative "even [waivers] entitled. .") previously noted, framing terms, obscures focus discussion. way—by beneficial "consistent Act," 733, fundamentally undermines achieve. Each waives victim difficult, "benefit" magnanimously preserves fewer individuals, Congress. 72 particularly unpersuasive apparent belief coerce "indisputably entitled." 731, fears incurring leverage deserve. so, unfortunate And certainly central assuming relevant, greatly exaggerates due failure distinguish claims. 754. mixes concerns reluctance high. 734-737. prohibition negotiation, waivers, ascertain agrees increases separate altogether, 734, 735, 736, , beside point.17 With (and again relevant), increased packages dispositive factor asserts, support,18 "significant number" settlements. 734-735. ironic "documentation" comment juncture," 742, 34, similarly speculate Be overstates extent (or fees) unduly fee, great.19 Against this, weigh nonnegotiated trial; reminds potentially, magnitude. 734-735, 24. remain last Term (1985), incentive offers, namely, limit refuses proceeds 75 deny settlements; increase effect. exaggerating size awards, ignoring negotiations, predictions inflated. actual disincentive where three true: feels likely win fees; costly litigating case; (3) adding litigate. small although, "document" assertion. C hand, contravene necessary—and sufficient—incentives Prohibiting ensures fee. prohibited, interfere still enhance effectiveness dispose quickly. frees reputation advocate quickly clients. established disappearance general." hoped repair mistake. meantime, avenues available. limits local associations regulate lawyers. Associations already declared unethical Association York, 82-80 Committee, Law 389. commended hoped, followed organizations respecting intent protecting rights. 78 addition, agreements fees.20 replicate market (in contribute client's recovery21 feasible—as hoped—to expend During debates passage Hugh Scott reminded addressed today "we times valueless; breeds cynicism basic fairness system. [We] vigilant ones." custody, duration fluctuates degree. appears custody moment, membership apparently 2,000. 61. subsequently bore burden himself, inure Aid. Plaintiffs Motion Consideration Costs Attorney (D. Idaho), receives grants Services Corporation 2996-2996l, 2996f(b)(1); CFR 1609 (1984). append brief parties' correspondence setting forth respective positions embarking letter-by-letter status bargaining, proposals uniformly almost always Paragraph provides: "Plaintiffs incurred, Court." 104. 23(e). infra. presentation reads follows: "In words, myself negotiating think pretty instance. "I forced, perceived want jeopardized problems occurred. instance years along. disturbed basis my cause jeopardized." 90-91. wrote letter nature offer: signing dependent compromise going wanted conform legally. Under circumstances, inappropriate you challenge stipulation, falls tried successfully until validity determined, unfair it." 115-116. 112. "Dismissal Compromise. compromised notice dismissal manner directs." Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 129, 2574, (1980): weaken her fees." ibid. (1976)), 5908. refusal Gaslight Club, Carey, 447 54, 70-71, 2024, 2034, 723 (1980); pp. precedent, Mendoza 623 1338 1980), Third Prandini Tea 557 1015 (1977), panel below cited approvingly, instituted trading benefiting themselves. 1352-1353; 1020-1021. remainder. ever choice recommending award, Ninth accord Circuit, 1021 (not exception circumstances"); El Club Del Barrio, Community Corps., 735 98, 101, (CA3 1984) (dictum noting applicability explicit), conflicts Circuits overall Security 125, 1104 (1985) (opinion MacKinnon, J.); 134-135, 1113-1114 judgment); Lazar Pierce, 757 438-439 (CA1 1985); Gram Louisiana, 691 728, 730 (dictum); Chicano Police Officer's Stover, 624 127, 132 (CA10 1980). Pasadena Education Spangler, 427 437, 96 2697, 2705, 599 (1976); Shoe Machinery 391 244, 251, 1496, 1500, 562 (1968); Railway Employees Wright, 364 642, 651, 81 368, 373, 349 (1961); Swift 286 106, 460, 462, 999 (1932). Firefighters Stotts, 467 561, 592, 2576, 2595, 483 (1984) (STEVENS, 184, Comment a, (1981) ("If performance unenforceable [as policy] exchange, [is] unenforceable"); E. Farnsworth, 5.8, 361 (1982). Generally speaking, exercise client; interests, otherwise, influence advice. 5-1, 5-2 (as 1980); 1.7(b), 2.1 fee; 7-9; 1.2(a). opinions bottomed Wash.L.Rep. 389, 394-395 82-80, 4-5 (dissenting opinion); 508-511 Grievance Commission Overseers Maine, 17, Advisory Opinions 69-70 (1983). sake completeness, mentioned Final Conference (declining adopt flat forbidding fees). Georgia, 39, Ga.St.Bar News 2, (rejecting reasoning reason, others, "[t]o proposing wherein plaintiffs['] [means that] made. undeniably inimical disputes parties"). N.Y.C.B.A., 508 ("Defense lack interest"). Accord, Wash.L.Rep., operative provides, entirety: proceeding sections 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981 Revised Statutes, title IX Public 92-318, proceeding, America, charging of, Internal Revenue Code, VI costs." 6-7 4-5, 35122-35123 Drinan); 35125 Kastenmeier). reading accords Appeals. Jonas Stack, 758 567, 570, 1985) ("Strict conformity [§ 1988] [fee] client, party. procedure choice, compensate beneficiaries"); Brown General Motors 722 1009, 1011 ("Under [42 fees"); Cooper Singer, 719 1506-1507 (distinguishing counsel's entitlement "if owed contingent agreement, reduce courts" (emphasis added)); 629 703 1980) ("[A]ward 'prevailing party,' attorney"), rev'd grounds, Mobil 1358-1359 (disagreeing Smith South Side 567 306, 307 1978) ("[A]n [of fees] suing him"), construing Truth Lending Act's mandatory "creat[ing] claim." 1359). Judge Wald "bargaining chip" useful defendants. wrote: "On approach probably gamble front, 'bargaining chip' cuts ways. prevents defendants, VII exploiting objectionable way; deprives chip, prospect winning doubtful." U.S.App.D.C., 133, 1112. 33313-33314 Tunney); 33314-33315 Kennedy); provision, 3, 5, 8; 35123 Drinan), dissent reinstate guise carrying will. proponents "one strain principles interpretation utilize non-negotiability 1988." Calhoun, Attorney-Client Conflicts Interest Concept Non-Negotiable U.Colo.L.Rev. 341, 385 buttressed emulate "over fifty" enlisting prosecution books decades. (appendix remarks Drinan) statutes). No frustrated unrealistic assume unchanged redaction were, diminished exceed If, likely, lowered cushion entitled, inclining somewhere extremes sides dampened, albeit lesser Rivera Riverside, 763 1580, 1581-1583 (city ordered victorious $245,456.25 $33,350 damages), granted, 917, 253 Cunningham McKeesport, 753 262, 269 $35,000 $17,000); 205 390, Copeland Marshall, 641 880, (1980) (en banc) ($160,000 $33,000 Skoda Fontani, 646 1193, 1194 (CA7), remand, 519 F.Supp. 309, (ND Ill.1981) ($6,086.12 $1 recovery). 3015 ($171,692.47 claimed $60,000 judgment). Grendel's Den, Larkin, 749 945, 960 (awarding $113,640.85 expenses zoning liquor establishments Larkin 116, 505, 297 (1982)). While identified multiplied rate" "[t]he starting fee," 433, 1939, "product inquiry," 434, 1940, "there standard rates unreasonably low high." 897, 1548, "A empowered reasonableness." 1550, 19. 1941. calculation anything arithmetical exercise. variability discussed in, Berger, Awarded "Reasonable"?, 126 281, 283-284 (1977); Diamond, Firestorm Awards, A.B.A.J. 1420, 1420 Attorneys Congress: (Feb. Hearing Equity (S. 2802) Constitution 98th 2d 280-293 judge Task Force Circuit's "tends occasion, impossible." Force: (footnotes reasoned: "[P]reventing be, eliminating certainty defendant. net trials, raising justifiable inasmuch discussing hypothetical real." acknowledge "exchange information" regarding confined records customary billing rates, information insufficient forecasting above. "exchange" "assurance" amount, breached. Apparently, circumvented tacit (defendants' 'more honored breach' "); A. Miller, Class Actions 222 ("Hence informal withholding approved"); 805, (survey Judges serving exchanges being used "voluntarily compensable settle"). Finally, renege agreements, future unable trust assurances unanimous concluding dissenting, 762-763; 764-765. conducive 732-734. applies well. "whatever to" "found 'reasonable' Act." Post, 753, dissent's imaginative, practical. 10,757 "other year—most 1983 authorizes fees—only 111 Annual Director Administrative Office Courts, Analysis Workload Twelve Month Period Ended 30, 1985 555 Assuming approximately 99% 90% thousand annually slightly now. novel carry presumably applied shifting. 22, supra. 510 ("[T]he persistent undermine it"). 394 staff Liberties Union estimates requests half litigated. Winter, Requests Unethical: Opinion, regard, Circuit: "Against background, situations except improper. Freedom Information journalist won government appeal, improper documents, presents grossly his/her provisions. saving money pay, enacted." Rep., declarations quoted Part I, class—i.e., exchanged equivalent value. cognizant occurred, pool shrink, constricting "effective process" persons grievances provide. "tyranny decisions" fashion documentation time. premature juncture. believe, remote. 1112, "Each litigant, unique; looking strength stage effective, substantiality merits, explanations did." 134, 1113 not, conflict, punish taking exposure. key chances exposure determinations, legitimate balanced defendant, governmental agency certainty. balancing regardless phrased lump sum measure situations, inquiry assessing conduct." note item representative's amounted $30,000 116-117, 1095, 1096, J.). recovering representative conversely, expenditures associated continuing accepting doubtful contributes 1944, (BRENNAN, part); 1501 829 1982); Oldham Ehrlich, 617 163, (CA8 Dennis Chang, 611 1302, 1306 343 Concerns Compelling Litigants Favorable Cases Vill.L.Rev. 597, 643-644 My enact Significantly, cites history—or anywhere matter—to "arsenal." follows clearly establishes, viewed 12, 1975. Tunney S. 2278 July 31, signed President became 1976. Ironically, statement. two: confers attorneys, 730-731; freely exploit advantage. public. often advantage relying establish bureaucracy. coincide public, diverge, intentions. 900, (1945). identical easy "anymore waived, within contemplated especially keep fragile bar. awarded, sums earned ordinary commercial 310-315 (1977). inefficient practitioners, 633-634 studies indicating 1% engage practice). organizations, 634; 894-895, 1546-1547, obliged advise based undivided loyalty render advice organization's 5-2, DR 5-101(A) if, whole, advantageous one. (1981), Maine 69, Bar, Reporter inclusion 2; 31832 Hathaway) ("[R]ight vital area them"). funds sign contingency retainers outset representation. Amici societies inform rule, regulation entering NAACP Defense Educational Fund, 10-11; Assistance 12-13. protection arrangements unavailable proportion which, misconceived doctrine sovereign immunity, Atascadero Hospital Scanlon, 234, 247, 3142, 3150, 171 dissenting), precludes bodies, frequent damages, amounts arrangement. none arrangements. all, because, inadequate. 748-751. inevitable sympathy plight, altruistic sacrifice. incompetents, one, represents. 7-12 General's suggestion effort" finds consider, 739-740, irrelevant. bargaining. posture future. Lawyers' Choice: Theoretical Appraisal Litigation Investment Decisions, Soc.Rev. (1980-1981) (concluding "fee service" withdraw benefits); 637 ("No sophisticated responses becomes, expectation initiated"). chore impose burden. overlook adversarial context, hear factfinding resolve spent, like. Similarly, decide lodestar reflect high-quality nonsuccess, prepare anticipation appellate review. simple raw data parties. calculations will, effort. lessening congestion, system efficiently fairly affording accrue reached noncivil explained: phrase party' victor final include litigant succeeds evidentiary hearing jury. 'prevailing' out-of-court helping congestion." III-C, subject Any settling, fully alleviates regard. cite 25. these, draw inference proceedings upper figure middle range. states 'the case.' (Idaho), 5). self-serving statement, persuade establish. rare, frivolous minor (prevailing "special Kerr Quinn, 692 875 Skehan Bloomsburg College, 436 657 (MD Pa.1977). elsewhere, legality purely Nix Whiteside, ----, 988, 123 (1986) peculiar permits satisfying make—or sell adversary—a convincing recovery. Yet that. treating 733 (1985)), places quite unique—and unfavorable—category.

Classification Label: 5