Affidavit of C. Stephen Ralston in Support of Plaintiffs' Petitions for Attorneys' Fees

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

X 

BARBARA MAJOR, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve. Civil Action 

No. 82-1192 

DAVID C. TREEN, et al., Section C 

Defendants. 

X 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' 

PETITIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 
  

  

STATE OF NEW YORK ) 
20.09, 3 

) COUNTY OF NEW YORK 

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON, being duly sworn, deposes and 

1. I am a United States citizen and a resident of New 

York State. I am an attorney admitted to practice law before the 

Supreme Court of California, the United States District Courts 

for the Northern District of California and the Southern District 

of Alabama, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, 

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and District of 

Columbia Circuits and the Supreme Court of the United States. 

2. My employer is the NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, Inc., located in New York City. I have worked 

there as a staff attorney since September, 1964. During the 

years from 1968 to 1970, I was director the San Francisco office 

of the Legal Defense Fund. Since 1971, I have held the position  



of First Assistant Counsel. My duties include supervision of 

other staff attorneys and consultation with attorneys in private 

practice concerning various matters in connection with litiga- 

tion. Thus, I have substantial experience in evaluating the work 

and level of experience and skill of attorneys working in the 

field of civil rights. 

3. During the more than twenty years of my employment 

I have been continuously involved in litigation in federal courts 

in various states. This work has included substantial pre-trial 

and trial experience and the briefing and arguing of appeals in 

courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. All 

of this work has been in cases involving civil rights issues, 

that is, cases dealing with various aspects of discrimination 

against Blacks and other minorities. I have worked on hundreds 

of cases involving discrimination in employment, housing, 

schools, jury selection, and voting, as well as cases involving 

prison conditions, health care, and poverty law issues. With 

regard to voting rights in particular see, e.9., Smith v. Paris, 
  

257 F. Supp. 901 (M.D. Ala. 1966), modified and aff'd, 386 PFP.24 
  

979 (5th Cir. 1967); Bell v. Southwell, 376 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 
  

1967). 

 



4. Another area of my expertise is civil rights 

attorneys fees. I was one of the attorneys in Johnson v. Georgia 
  

Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974); Hutto v. 
  

Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), and Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., 
  

416 U.S. 696 (1974). I have argued a number of attorneys' fees 

cases at the appellate level, including, inter alia, Webb v. Dyer 
  

Cty. B38. of Fd,, D.S. B. Ct. No. 83-1360 (argued Oct. 29, 1984); 
  

Gaines v. Dougherty Cty. Bd. of Ed., 11th Cir. No. 84-8450 
  

(argued Feb. 26, 1985). Since the end of 1979 I have been 

responsible for preparing and litigating counsel fee applications 

in the Legal Defense Fund's cases. In sO doing I have familia- 

rized myself with recent cases granting fees and the level of 

hourly rates currently being used. 

5. In addition to my litigation work, I have given 

numerous seminars relating to both substantive civil rights law 

and attorneys' fees. These have included, inter alia, participa- 
  

ting in a training program given by the Eastern District of New 

York on Fair Fmployment Litigation under Title VII on June 18, 

1983, and in a seminar on the Compensation of Plaintiff's Lawyers 

in Pro Bono Cases given at the 8th Annual Fall Meeting of the 

Section on Litigation of the American Bar Association on November 

3, 1983. I was the author of the draft of the chapter on Federal 

Fmployee Litigation for the Second Edition of Schlei and 

Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law (1983), and was the 
   



primary author of a recent report of the Committee On Legal 

Assistance of the Association of the Bar of the City of New 

York, entitled "Counsel Fees In Public Interest Litigation," 39 

The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 

300 (1984). 

6. Civil rights law in general is recognized as a 

specialized field of expertise within the legal profession. 

Within that field, voting rights litication requires particular 

knowledge and experience. It is essential to develop a detailed 

familiarity not only with the substantive legal principles but 

also with the intricacies of the particular electoral system at 

issue in each case. Litigation against public defendants presents 

particular difficulties because of the far greater resources a 

governmental agency has at its disposal. It has been my consis- 

tent experience that cases against public agencies are harder 

fought, consume substantially more time by plaintiffs' attorneys, 

and tend to settle, if at all, only after the case has been fully 

prepared for trial. Governmental agencies tend to oppose the 

award of adequate attorneys' fees far more vigorously than do 

private defendants. Thus, in general, civil rights cases where a 

government entity is the defendant tend to be more protracted and 

to require much more time and effort to win. 

 



Te At the request of C. Lani Guinier, Esqg., I have 

reviewed a number of documents and pleadings relating to this 

case for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to the reason- 

ableness of the hours and hourly rates requested in the plain- 

tiffs' motions for an award of attorneys' fees, and with regard 

to the requested multipliers. The documents reviewed include, 

inter alia, the motions for fees and supporting documentation and 
  

the defendants' opposition. 

8. As Ms. Guinier's affidavit reflects, she is in 

overall charge of the Legal Defense Fund's voting rights program. 

She has primary and independent responsibility for conducting all 

phases of litigation in the area, including identifying specific 

legal issues, recommending whether LDF should support a particu- 

lar case, drafting pleadings, conducting discovery, acting as 

lead trial counsel, briefing and arguing cases on appeal, and 

supervising and directing other staff attorneys., She was also 

responsible for co-ordinating the Fund's legislative activities 

in connection with the Voting Rights Act of 1982 and for planning 

and co-ordinating many conferences and meetings dealing with 

voting rights. She is recognized at the Fund, as well as in the 

civil rights legal community as a whole, as an expert in the 

field and her advice and expertise is r 

and co-operating attorneys.  



Ze At the request of C. Lani Guinier, Esg., I have 

reviewed a number of documents and pleadings relating to this 

case for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to the reason- 

ableness of the hours and hourly rates requested in the plain- 

tiffs' motions for an award of attorneys' fees, and with regard 

to the requested multipliers. The documents reviewed include, 

inter alia, the motions for fees and supporting documentation and 
  

the defendants' opposition. 

8S. As Ms. Guinier's affidavit reflects, she is in 

overall charge of the Legal Defense Fund's voting rights program. 

She has primary and independent responsibility for conducting all 

phases of litigation in the area, including identifying specific 

legal issues, recommending whether LDF should support a particu- 

lar case, drafting pleadings, conducting discovery, acting as 

lead trial counsel, briefing and arguing cases on appeal, and 

supervising and directing other staff attorneys., She was also 

responsible for co-ordinating the Fund's legislative activities 

in connection with the Voting Rights Act of 1982 and for planning 

and co-ordinating many conferences and meetings dealing with 

voting rights. She is recognized at the Fund, as well as in the 

civil rights legal community as a whole, as an expert in the 

field and her advice and expertise is relied upon by LDF staff 

and co-operating attorneys.  



9. Based on my review of the foregoing documents and 

my experience in the areas of civil rights litigation attorneys’ 

fees, I am of the opinion that the fees requested are reasonable. 

Although the defendants attack the total number of hours reques- 

ted as excessive, the total hours are within the range necessary 

to be spent to represent adequately the plaintiffs in a major 

voting rights case that is vigorously contested. With regard to 

the complaint of the defendant regarding alleged duplication of 

effort, it is my opinion that this complaint is not well-founded. 

Consultation and co-operation between co-counsel is an absolute 

prerequisite to the effective and efficient handling of complex 

litigation. Joint effort will, in fact, avoid duplication. In 

sum, the total hours reguested are, in my judgment, reasonable. 

10. With regard to hourly rates, I can state that the 

rates are well within the range being awarded civil rights 

attorneys of the level of experience and expertise shown by the 

affidavits and resumes of Ms. Guinier and her co-counsel. Indeed, 

if anything, the hourly rates requested are modest. Compare, 

Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.28 760 (7th Cir. 1982) (8175 
  

and $200 per hour for experienced New York and Washington Title 

VII attorneys). 

11. With regard to the multiplier, it is essential 

that an adjustment be made for delay in payment, either by 

adjusting historical rates or by using current rates. Otherwise,  



* " 

attorneys will be given a strong disencentive to take on civil 

rights litigation and rather concentrate their practice on those 

matters that can ensure prompt payment of current bills. Many 

courts have recognized the severe impact of delay and uncertainty 

of payment and have required that it be ameliorated in civil 

rights cases. Parker v. Lewis, 670 F.24 249 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 
  

followed, Barnes v. United States, 678 F.2d 10, 12. (3rd Cire. 
  

1982); James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings, 559 P.24 310, 358-59 
  

(5th Cir. 1977); Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 892-93 (D.C. 
  

Cir. 1980) (en banc); Johnson . University College, 706 F.2d 
  

1205, 1210-11 (11th Cir. 1983); Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 
  

1382 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc). In addition to the factor of 

delay in payment, the risks of losing in this type of litigation 

also requires an adjustment to the lodestar to assure that 

competent and experienced counsel will be encouraged to take on 

this type of complex litigation. 

For the reasons, it is my opinion that the fees 

requested by counsel for plaintiffs are re sonable. a 

/ 

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
  

Sworn to and subscribed before 

me this | Whaay of April, 1985. 
247 7 
thi U = ian 

No¥ary Public ¢ 
  

GLORIA A. JONES 
Notary Public, State of New York 

No. 24-7113050 

Commsnon Exes hosh 2, 108