Northcross et al. v. Bd. of Ed. of The Memphis City Schools et al. 397 U.S. 232 (1973). Page 1302 Pyramid Lake Pauite Tribe of Indians v. Morton, Cir No. 2506-07 (decided D.D.C.); Memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for attorneys fees____ Sierra Club v. Lynn, Civ. No. SA 72 CA 77 (decided Aug. 24, 1973, W.D. 814 1363 Stanford Daily v. James Zurcher, et al., Civ. No. 71-912-RFP (decided 1334 Weeks v. So. Bell, Civ. No. 443; (decided December 1, 1971, S.D. Ga.) 1146 1139 Weeks v. So. Bell, 467 F. 2d 95 (5th Cir. 1972), rehearing denied (1973); 1149 1158 Weeks v. So. Bell, 467 F. 2d 95 (5th Cir. 1972), rehearing denied (1973); 1163 1168 1173 1179 1183 1192 Weeks v. So. Bell, 467 F. 2d 95 (5th Cir. 1972), rehearing denied (1973); 1195 1202 ARTICLES Baird, Charitable Deductions for Pro Bono Publico_Professional Services: 1537 1388 Note: The Allocation of Attorneys' Fees after Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 38 U. CHI. L. REV. (1971). 1397 Note: Awarding Attorneys' Fees to the "Private Attorney General": Judicial Green Light to Private Litigation in the Public Interest, 24 HAST. L. J. 733 (1973) 1455 Nussbaum, Attorneys' Fees In Public Interest Litigation, 48 N. Y.U.L. 1418 McLaughlin, The Recovery of Attorneys' Fees: A New Method of Financing 1493 Mause, Winner Takes All: A Re-examination of the Indemnity System, 55 1213 Wolhowe, Cathe, Environmental Groups Face Fund Cut, from The 1252 PROPOSED LEGISLATION S. 973-To amend sec. 2412 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for the recovery of attorney's fees and expenses in certain actions brought by or against the United States. Introduced by Senator Hollings, 93d Cong., 1st sess. PART IV BAR ASSOCIATIONS 1278(a) The American Bar Association, Smith, Chesterfield, president.. 1550 1549 STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS Alabama State Bar, Nachman, M. Roland, Jr., president.. Arizona State Bar, Segal, Richard A., president.. Arkansas State Bar, West, James E., president... The Colorado Bar Association, Williams, Anthony W., president_ The Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Canfield, Austin F., Jr., president_ Page 1553 1554 1556 1559 1562 State Bar of Georgia, Adams, F. Jack, president.. 1563 Illinois State Bar Association, Sutter, William P., president.. 1573 The Iowa State Bar Association, Tomasek, F. W., president 1576 Maryland State Bar Association, Walker, Thomas J., Jr., chairman, Economic Committee_. 1580 Massachusetts Bar Association, Fisher, Frederick G., Jr., president_ 1585 State Bar of Michigan, Smith, Carl, Jr., president.. 1587 Minnesota State Bar Association, Halverson, Gene W., president__ 1592 The Montana Bar Association, Loble, Henry, president. 1599 Nebraska State Bar Association, Welch, Harry L., president. 1603 Ohio State Bar Association, Porter, Walter A., president.. 1605 Pennsylvania Bar Association, Fuchs, William J., Esq., chairman, Commit tee on Availability of Legal Services- 1608 State Bar of Texas, Jeffers, Leroy, president_ 1617 The State Bar of South Dakota, Oviatt, Ross H., president_. 1640 Tennessee Bar Association, Dodson, Harlan, president_. 1645 Utah State Bar, Stark, LaVar E., president... 1647 Washington State Bar Association, Cone, Cleary S., president. 1652 1656 CALIFORNIA LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS Century City Bar Association, Hartley, J., president.. Del Norte County Bar Association, de Solenni, Mario E., president.. Marin County Bar Association, Shaw, Leonard, president.... SAMPLING OF COMMENTS FROM GENERAL PUBLIC LEGAL FEES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1973 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON REPRESENTATION OF CITIZEN Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room 2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John V. Tunney (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Tunney (presiding) and Cook. Also present: Jane Frank, chief counsel; Neil Levy, assistant counsel; Joseph Dawahare, minority counsel; Ann Hennigan, chief clerk; and Matthew Schneider, staff assistant. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN V. TUNNEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA; CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON REPRESENTATION OF CITIZEN INTERESTS Senator TUNNEY. More than 30,000 legal questions each day affecting Americans personally are not resolved because people cannot afford legal counsel. These questions include many common transactions-selling or buying a house, transferring a pension, clarifying a government regulation, or probating a will. Beyond the everyday decisions, Americans face countless laws, court rulings, and bureaucratic decisions that affect their jobs, their children, their neighborhoods, their environments, and other aspects of their lives. In a government of laws, all citizens have a legal right to redress of grievances and injustices. Crucial to the process of redress is the lawyer. Yet, too often, citizens, untrained in law, fail to perceive what their rights and remedies are. Too often they feel baffled by the complex maze of institutions and regulations that surround them. Too often lawyers are unavailable to help citizens at rates they can afford. The result: The erosion of basic constitutional and other legal rights; an imbalance of advocacy in our legislative forums; a loss of faith in our governmental processes. These issues are not new, but a basic ingredient, the lawyer and the services he could offer to all citizens, has not been the object of sufficient study and scrutiny by the Congress. The legal profession is the first object of study by this new Subcommittee on Representation of Citizen Interests, established by the (1) Senate in May. The subcommittee is charged with investigating the ability of all Americans to obtain adequate representation in the prevention and settlement of grievances. That mandate includes an evaluation of the existing methods of providing representation for people, of the economics of lawyering as it affects citizen access to legal representation, of the ways in which the lawyer can be brought closer to the people and of how his services can be brought within the means of all Americans. The initial 6 days of hearings will consider the effect of legal fees on the availability of lawyers to people We will hear from and about people who faced problems without lawyers, and couldn't resolve them. We will hear about people who tried to find lawyers and couldn't. Some will say they found lawyers and weren't helped, or were overcharged. They will be homebuyers, veterans, miners, members of minority groups, indigents accused of crimes, environmentalists, and others who believe their rights to be violated. What we are really talking about here is extending consumer protection to one of the most important areas of our lives the legal area. Most often, the consumer's problem is perceived to be rising food prices and related problems of redress. Just last month in California, I chaired extensive Commerce Committee hearings on these issues and heard of the bitter frustration of witnesses over their lack of remedies and the unresponsiveness of bureaucracy. "Nobody cares. Nobody gives a damn," said one despairing wit ness. As bureaucracies become more complex and unresponsive, the citizen needs the lawyer more than ever. Yet the gap between the citizen and those who would or could represent his interests is growing. The problem is compounded by the lack of information about the services that lawyers could perform and the costs of these services. There is an insufficient program to make the substantial lawyer population available to citizens at costs they can afford. When Federal or State subsidies are available for lawyers' fees, there are often inadequate safeguards against abuse. These hearings will explore these and related topics as follows: SEPTEMBER 19 AND 20-CONSUMER ACCESS TO ATTORNEYS AND MINIMUM FEE SCHEDULES The subcommittee will hear from consumers and those who attempt to help them regarding the range of consumer problems and the availability of attorneys to help solve them. Often the consumer is forced to pay a standard or minimum lawyer's fee which is recommended by a local or State bar association and followed by a substantial, if not overwhelming, number of lawyers in a community. Recently in northern Virginia, a home buyer, faced with a fee of over $500 to check title to his house before he could be eligible for title insurance, wrote to 36 lawyers in the community in an attempt to find one who would charge less. Not one of the 19 lawyers who responded was willing to charge less, and many of them, quoting the minimum fee for the area, stated that to charge less would be unethical. The home buyer brought suit under the antitrust laws on behalf of himself and the class of homebuyers in his area and won. The case is now on appeal, but the Justice Department has indicated that it also believes that such fee arrangements are illegal under the antitrust laws, and it may bring suit as well. OCTOBER 1 AND 2-GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND SUBSIDY OF LEGAL FEES Most people are aware of the legal services program for the poor established under the Economic Opportunities Act. Few, however, know of Federal subsidies to attorneys who secure benefits to miners under the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972, or to veterans under title 38 of the United States Code, or who defend indigents accused of crimes and are compensated under the Criminal Justice Act. Each of these programs uses members of both the private and public bar and systems of payment vary. In the case of Black Lung benefits, some lawyers, through indirect subsidy, are able to collect a contingent fee of up to 20 percent of the claim recovered, while attorneys who secure a benefit for veterans are limited to the flat rate of $10 per claim. A private attorney representing an indigent accused of a crime is eligible for compensation at an hourly rate. The Federal defender program provides for salaried attorneys to represent indigent defendants. Which of these systems is most efficient and enables the best quality representation? Should such programs be extended to other areas or revised or improved in the areas mentioned? During these 2 days, the subcommittee will hear from a number of attorneys, judges, State and local officials, miners, and other potential clients who will present their views on these issues. OCTOBER 4 AND 5-REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS A common misconception is that when a citizen seeks redress in the courts and wins, the cost of his legal battle is borne by the losing party. Ordinarily, this is not so. The attorney's fee must be paid by the wronged citizen even if he prevails in court. In many cases, this cost is so high that citizens cannot afford to redress their grievances. In recognition of the problem, Congress has passed many statutes shifting the cost of the attorney's fee to the wrongdoer, thereby providing an incentive for citizens to seek redress in the courts. For example, citizens discriminated against in their ability to obtain jobs, public accommodations, and housing may by statute obtain an award of reasonable attorney's fee as part of the judgment. In the absence of congressional guidance, courts have awarded attorneys' fees to prevailing parties in areas such as civil rights and in environmental cases when the courts have found that an important public interest was served by the bringing of the suit. These developments, fostered by both Congress and the courts, may give private citizens an effective mechanism for financing quality representation in vindicating important rights. The brief span of these hearings will far from exhaust the subject at hand. There is considerable evidence, however, that the cost of securing a lawyer affects the use, availability, and quality of repre |