Motion for Reconsideration of Award of Attorney's Fees

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILEY L. BOLDEN, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

VS. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-297-P 

CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, ) 

et al., 

Defendants. ) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES 
AGAINST THE CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA 
  

Plaintiffs move the Court to reconsider its' Order and 

Decree on Plaintiffs’ Claim For Attorneys' Fees and Expenses 

Against the City of Mobile, Alabama, for the following 

reasons: 

1. In light of the Court's finding that the customary 

fee for public employment on a non-contingent basis hovers near 

the $40 per hour mark, awarding plaintiffs' counsel an equivalent 

or less amount is, as a matter of law, contrary to congressional 

intent and Fifth Circuit guidelines, which provide that a con- 

tingent fee is to be accorded a higher rate than a non-contingent 

fee. 

2. Congress has established statutory requirements, not 

an equitable standard as existed prior to Alyeska Pipeline. It 
  

is congressional policy that civil rights be enforced through 

the private bar rather than by a government agency. Under the 

federal statutory scheme, the court's findings regarding 

 



  

Alabama's relative poverty and regressive tax structure are 

misplaced. 

3. 42 U.S.C. 8 1973 1(e) and 1988 provide for prevailing 

parties to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees. The 

Court has acknowledged that the named plaintiffs were members 

of the NPVL, yet failed to award them the $1,500 their civil 

rights organization expended to force the government to protect 

their constitutional rights. The recovery of costs by the 

plaintiffs is an integral part of the remedy, and plaintiffs 

are legally entitled to recover the $1,500 advanced by the 

NPVL. 

4. The Court's finding and conclusion makes no allowance 

for the fact that the "prevailing rates" were billed regularly 

while plaintiffs' award comes two years after the action began. 

Because of the burden of this and other protracted civil rights 

litigation, plaintiffs attorneys have on several occasions been 

forced to borrow money to meet payrolls and office expenses. 

The $40 per hour rate discounted at 8% for two years would mean 

that plaintiffs' attorneys are receiving an effective rate of 

a compensation of about $33 to $34 per hour for the work per- 

formed early in the litigation. 

5. The effect of the ruling is to set a double standard 

that taxpaying plaintiffs, prevailing in complex civil rights 

litigation, after bearing the risks and expenses of the litiga- 

tion against their own government will receive less for attorneys 

fees and expenses than elected officials paid attorneys who 

defended the unconstitutional system. 

6. The Court erred in finding that the customary fee for 

similiar work "hovers near the $40.00 per hour rate." It was 

stated that the assistant counsel for the County was paid $50 

per hour, the City attorney was paid at least $50 per hour and 

 



  

the School Board attorney was $40 per hour plus a retainer. 

No defense attorney was paid $40 per hour without ‘a retainer 

for handling federal court litigation. 

7. Plaintiffs submit the court erred in finding that the 

appropriate standard for the customary fee is that paid "for 

municipal or public service work". No place in the litigation 

or legislative history is it even indicated that such a 

standard is to be used. Rather fees are to be those which are 

adequate to "attract competent counsel." "(E)qually complex 

Federal ligitation, such as antitrust litigation" are cited as 

an appropriate standard. There is no evidence that the fees 

awarded by the Court "will attract competent counsel." To 

the contrary, there is unanimous testimony that substantially 

higher fees would be required to attract attorneys to represent 

plaintiffs in civil rights litigation. 

8. The evidence is in coRtLich with respect to fees paid 

attorneys for the City, and the Court's reliance upon it is 

misplaced. In answers to interrogatories lead counsel for the 

City, after raising numerous objections, stated that his law 

firm was paid fees that "amounts to $50 per hour!" for a total 

of $85,035.00. Yet, in their letter to the Court of May 26, 

1977, wherein they state the number of hours attributable to 

the trial, there appears to be some irreconciable figures. This 

information reveals an hourly figure in excess of $50 per hour, 

leaving the clear impression that the defendants billed at 

different rates for the various attorneys. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court will reconsider 

its order of June 14, 1977, and award plaintiffs their costs 

and attorneys' fees as prayed for in their amended motion. 

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of Jure, 1977. 

 



  

CRAWFORD, BLACKSHER, FIGURES & BROWN 
1407 DAVIS AVENUE 
MOBILE, ALABAMA 36603 

/) ~ 

A & eit 
4%, W LU eis Lar 

NY, U. ACK3HER J 
LARRY T. MENEFEE 

  

EDWARD STILL 
601 TITLE BUILDING 
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203 

JACK GREENBERG 
ERIC SCHNAPPER 
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE 
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I do hereby certify that on this 24th day of June, 1977, 

I served a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AGAINST THE CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA 

upon counsel of record, C. B. Arendall, Esquire, Fred G. Collins, 

Esquire and Charles Rhyne, Esquire, by depositing same in the 

United States Mail, postage prepaid. 

A a 

ah a) er lr) 
  

ARTTORNEY i PLAINTIFFS 

/