« Courts - Attorney sanctioned for plagiarizing material for briefs and by unreasonably billing his client for preparation of the briefs | Main | Law - Perfect storm hits real estate industry »
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Law - More on: Attorney who represented Seattle parents in a race-based lawsuit aims to recover his pro bono legal costs
More on this ILB entry from July 2, 2007, which included this quote from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Seattle Public Schools, already stung from losing its long-running legal fight over voluntary desegregation measures, now faces a new trial: paying the seven-figure legal fees of the parents who sued the district.The Seattle Times reported Sept. 6th:Just one day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the district cannot use a racial tiebreaker in determining school assignments, the parents' "pro bono" attorney indicated he will try to recover legal costs he estimates will be seven figures.
Technically, the parents group still has to get a U.S. district judge to declare them the "prevailing party," said Seattle Public Schools attorney Shannon McMinimee.For background, see these ILB entries.McMinimee says it's "disingenuous" for the law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine, to go after money when the firm took the case pro bono. But firm spokesman Mark Usellis said "pro bono" means their clients don't have to pay.
"The thing that's really important to us in a civil-rights case is that Congress specifically and explicitly wrote into the law that if the government is found to have violated citizens' civil rights, then the prevailing party should seek fee recovery," he said.
Most governments can argue, as Seattle Public Schools is, that they don't have much money. But going after the fees helps deter other government bodies from violating civil rights, Usellis said.
The parents who sued the district in 2000 did not seek damages but asked the court to force Seattle to stop using the race-based tiebreaker that prevented their children, who are white, from attending Ballard High School. The district did, in 2002, but continued to fight for the policy in court, eventually making it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to award the fees to the firm. If the firm wins, the fees likely wouldn't be covered by the district's insurance carrier, McMinimee said. So the money would have to come out of the district's $490 million general-fund budget.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 8, 2007 09:24 AM
Posted to General Law Related