High court to settle fee fight; weighs awards when civil rights suits are catalysts for change

Article Abstract:

Issues are discussed regarding Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, dealing with whether the "catalyst theory" in civil rights cases remains a viable path to attorney fees for parties prevailing through the defendant's voluntary compliance. The case is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cases, Civil rights

---

Fee change is a sea-change; but some seek way to skirt justices' limit on catalyst theory fees

Article Abstract:

The Supreme Court's rejection of the catalyst theory of obtaining attorneys' fees in Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. W. Va. Department of Health & Human Resources is discussed. This fee-shifting provision was something Congress used to inspire attorneys to handle complex environmental and civil rights suits.

---

Hoping for $75/hour; funding crisis has led to below-cost fees for appointed counsel

Article Abstract:

Attorneys who agree to represent indigent defendants under the 1964 federal Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must live with a very low hourly rate, and Congress has never even fully funded an increase to $75 an hour which was passed 13 years ago. CJA attorneys actually make hourly rates of $65 in-court and $45 out-of-court in most judicial districts, with an overall cap of $3,500 per case.

Prices and rates, Court-appointed counsel, Court appointed counsel

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The breaking point; a hiatus can help lawyers step back and reflect on what is important to them. No workout time? No sweat; with a little effort, lawyers can fit fitness into hectic schedules
• Abstracts: The firm goes khaki, but no t-shirts, please; buttoned-down lawyers go casual, but very cautiously
• Abstracts: Nipping youth crime in the bud; lawyers help steer truants to the right side of the law through bar projects. Cops in the cross fire
• Abstracts: Parents first; Supreme Court warns judges to be cautious when granting visitation rights to grandparents. Supreme stumpers; the next president could reshape the Court and the legal arena
• Abstracts: Courting the voters; free speech rulings allow judicial candidates to speak out on issues, despite ethical canons

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.