Appendix to Post-Trial Memorandum of Plaintiffs Ralph Gingles et al. and Defendant's Pre-Trial Brief dated July 21, 1983

    IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DTVISTON

-x

RALPH GINGLES, et a1. ,

Plainti fts ,

v.

LACY THORNBURG , etc.,
et dl. ,

Civ1l Action No. 81-803-
crv-5

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF NE9{ YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

Eric Schnapper, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in this

case, and I am employed as Assistant Counsel of the NAACP Legai

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. ( "Lega1 Defense Frrnd" ) . I

submit this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' application for

an award of attorneyst fees, costs and expenses.

Z. The Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit corporatlon vrhich

was f ounded j.n 1940 and which has since f urnished Iegal

assistance in cases involving claims of racial discrimination and

deprivation of constitutional rights before state and federal

courts throughout the nation. See NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415,



42t n.5 (1963). The Legal Defense Fund has been approved oy the

Appeliate Division of the State of New York to function as a

legal aid organization, and . it has. been cited by the United

States Supreme Court as harzing "a corporate reputation for

expertness in presenting and arguing the difficult guestions of

Iaw that frequently arise in civil rights litigation. " NAACP v.

Button, supra, 371 U.S. at 422. Attorneys affiliated with the

Legal Defense Fund have represented the plaintiffs in landmark

cases involving constitutional and civil rights issues which have

been decided by the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, and other

Circuits.

3. Neither I nor any other attorney on the staff of the

Legal Defense Fund has accepteci or expects to receive any

compensation or reimbursement from the plaintiffs in this case.

No counsel fees, costs, or expenses will be obtained for work

done or money spent on this case by the Legal Defense Fund or its

staff attorneys unless the court awards such fees, costs, and

expenses against the defendants. AnY such award to attorneys

employed by the Legal Defense Fund will be paid over to the Legal

Defense Fund.

4. I am admitted to practice law before the following

courts: the Supreme Court of the United States, the United

States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth,

Sixth anC Ninth Circuits; the United States District Courts for

the Southern and Eastern Districts cf New York; and the state

bars of California and New York.



5. I graduated in June, 1968, from Yale Law School, where

I served as one of the articles editor of the YaJ.e Law Journal.

In 1968-69 I worked as a law clerk to Justice Mathew Tobriner of

the California Supreme Court. Since the faIl of 1969, except for

the period 1981-82 and a number of brief leaves of absence, I

have worked as an Assistant Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense

Fund in New York City. In the Years !981-82 i served as the

Administrative Assistant to Congrressman Thomas Lantos of

California. Since 19?8 I have taught constitutional lltigation

and constitutional history at Columbia Law Schoo-l'.

6. Over the past fifteen years I have written

approximately one dozen law review and rel.ated articles. A list

of the publications is set forth in Appendix A.

7. My primary area of specialty at the Legal Defense Fund

has been Supreme Court practice. Appendix B contains a list of

the more than 60 Supreme Court cases in which I have participated

over the last 74 Years. I believe that, because of this

extensive experience, I am able to handle such Supreme Court

litigation substantially more efficiently and effectively than an

attorney unfamiliar with the Court's procedures and concerns.

8. A substantial number of the Supreme Court cases for

which I have been responsible have invoLved the Voting Rights Act

or otherwise involving voting discrimination cl.aims. See €.Q.,

Citv of Mobile v. Bolden , 446 U. S. 55 ( 1980) ; Will.iams v. Brown

446 U.S. 236 (1980); United Jewish Orqanizations of Williamsburqh

v. Carev, 43O U.S. L44 (1976); Beer v. United States 425 U.S. 130



(19?5); East Carroll Parish Schoo1 Board v.' Marshall, 424 U. S

636 (19?6); Commonwealth of Virqinia v. United States, 42O U.S.

901 (19?5); New York v. United states, 419 u.s. 8s8 ltg74); NAACP

v. New York, 413 U. S. 345 ( 1973 ) .

9. I have kept contemporaneous time records of my work on

this case, which represent a true and accurate reflection of the

hours that I devoted to it. A detailed summarY of those hours,

is set forth in Appendix C. According to those records I have

spent 777.2 hours on this case.

10. Under Bl.um v. Stenson , 465 U. S . 886, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 ,

899-9OO & n. 11 
"*-,, "atorneys' fees in civil rights cases are

to be calcUlated according to "market rates," i.e. "the rates

prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of

reasonably comparable ski11, experience and reputatlon. " The

rate for my work in this case should therefore be the rate that

would be charged by a New York City firm for the services of an

attorney in practice for over 16 years, with extensive experience

in Supreme Court litigation, substantial expertise in the subject

matter of this litigation, and a similar record of teaching and

legal publications.

11. fn light of New York prevailing rates, I believe that

an attorney in private practice in New York City with skilLs,

experi.ence and reputation reasonably comparable to my own would



bill his or her cllents

of S44,3OO for the 777.2

less than $25O per hour, or a total

expended +r- ,nr=.17

,/' 1,. ,i
Z-----'-

ffi,,i
rt/

/

at no

hours

Subscribed and sworn to

before me this Adu^,
of october, 1986.

IE



APPENDIX A

Prrbl. icat ions

"The Capital Punishment Conundrum, " 
- 

Mj.ch. L.Rev (Spring,
1986 ) .

''Unreasonable Searches and SeiZures of Papers, " 7i Va. L.Re':. 869
(1s85).

"Affirmative Action and the Legislative History of the Fourteenth
Amendment, " ?1. Va. L. Rev. 753 ( 1985 ) .

"The Supreme Court and Affirmatlve Action: An Exerclse in
"ludicial Restraint, " New Perspectives, I^Ij'nter, 1945 '

"The Parliament of g,londers , " 84 Col . L. R.ev. 1665 ' ( :344 ) '

', Taki.ng: Wi therspoon Ser ious 1y : The Search f or Death-Quar i ; :' ei
Jurors , " 62 Texas L. Rev . 977 ( 1984 ) .

,'Perpetuation of Past Discrimination, " 95 Hayl. L.Rev. 62S
(1s8s).

"Tvro Categor:.es of Discrimlnatory Intent, " ti i{arv. Ci.v. R'Is .

Civ. Lib. L.Rev. 31 (1982).

"Clvil Rights titigatlon After Monell, 79 Coi. L-Rev. 213 (i979).

,'Legal Ethics ano the Government Law1zer," 32 F.ecord of The Ass'n.
of the Bar of the City of New York 649 (1977).

"The Myth of Legal Ethics," a4 A.B.A.J. 2o2 (19?8).

,'The g.lages of Virtue: Are FederaL iuciges Overpaid?" Juris Doctcr,
Spring 19?3.

"Consumer Leglslation and the Poor," 76 YaIe L.J. 745 (136?).



APPENDIX 3

Supreme' Court Litisation

Decisions:

Kibbe v. Citv of Sprinsf i€14, No. 85-72L7 (pending)

thornbufq-J-,- !;!rr98, 90 t . Ed . 2d 25 ( 1986 )

Bazemore v. Fridav, 9O L.Ed.2d 315 ( 1986) '

Atascadero State Hospital. v. Scanlon,87 L.Ed.2d !71 (1985)

citv of oklahoma citv v. Tuttle, 85 t.Ed.2d 791 (1985).

Anderson ,.2. citv of Besse8ell__cjlly, 53 U. S. L.W. 43i4 ( 1985 ) .

, 53 Il. S . L. W. 41s9
(1e8s).

Brandon v. ilolt, 53 U.S.L.9l. 4122 (1985).

A-Lexanoer v. Choate, 53 U.S.L.W. 4072 (1985)'

coooer v. Federal Reserve ppegl!, 81 L.Ed.2d ?18 (1984).

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, ?9 t.Eo.2d 568 (:'364)

Memr:his Firef iqhters v. StQllEg , ?9 L. Ed. 2d 483 ( 1944 ) '

Bob Jones universitv v. united states, 76 L.Ed.2d 15? (1'343)

Citv of Mobile v. Boicien , 446 U. S . 55 ( 1980 ) '

lililLiams v. Brown, 446 U.S- 236 (1980).

Furnco Construction co . v. weter_e , 43A U. S . 567 ( 1974 ) .

Hutto v. Finnev , 437 U. S. 5?8 ( 1978 ) .

Monell v. Department of Social lerrrlces, 436 U.S. 658 (1973)

i. ted Je anizati Wi 11ia v. Carev, .l3C U. S .

144 ( 1976) .

Fitzpatrick v. Biizer, 427 U.S. 445 ( 1976) .

Salon-e v. United States, 426 U.S. 917 (1976)

WaLlace v. !{ouse, 425 U.S. 947 (1976)'



Schoo.l

Brown v. General Services Administratioq, 425 U'S' 820 (1976)

Beer .v. United States , 425 U. S . 130 ( 1976 ) '

424 U. S. 636

Place v. l.Ieinberqer , 4!g u. s. 1o4o , 42]. U. S . 906 , 426 U. S. 932
(1e76.) .

al th edS , 42O U.S. 9O1 (1975).

New York rr.' United States, 419 U. S. 884 (1974).

tsradlev v. SchooL of Ri , 41,6 U. S. +76
(te?4l,.

Curtis v-. Loether , 475 U. S. 189 ( 19?4 ) .

NAACP v. New York, 4L3 U.S. 345 (1973).

ross v f Edu Citv S , 472
u.s. 427 (1e?3).

Mournino v. Familv Publlcatipng-l-e-ry-ice. , 4tt U. S. 356 ( 1973 ) '

tunicus Briefs:

Ej'refiqhters v. Cleve1and, 90 L. Ed. 2d 4o5 ( i986 ) '

sirrqant v. Jackson Bc@, 90 L.Ed.2d 25O (1936)

Boston Fireflohters Locaf ?18 v. Boston Chapte:" NAAC?r ?6
L. Ed. 2d 330 ( 1983 ) .

Patsv v. tsoard of Resents, 457 U.S. 496 (i982) '

Minnick rr. Calif orni.a Department of Corrections, 452 U ' S ' 105
(iea1) .

, 447 U. S . o07.

Fuililove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 44A ( 198O).

Countv of Los Anseles v. DaVis, 44O U.S. 625 (1979)

.2d 344 ( 1966

. v. Retai

'rlniverslt'r of Ca.iif ornia Reqents v. Baicice, 438 tl. S . 265 ( 1978 ) '



Nixon v. Administrator of General Serlrlrceq, 433 U. S . 425 ( !977 ) .

Hazelwood School District v. Uniteq! .!!a!ee , 433 U. S . 299 ( L977 ) ,

East Texas Motor Freight v. Lodriquez, 43L U.S. 395 (1977),

McDonald v. Santa Fe Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 2i3 (1976).

Bitzer r/. Matthews, 427 U.S. 445 (1976).

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 ( 1974) .

Certiorari Petitions:
NicheLson v. Ouaker Oats CompanY, 105 S.Ct. 2696 (i945).

Moore v. Citv of Charlotte, 105 S.Ct. 3449 (1985).

Younq v. Lehman, 105 S.Ct.2t26 (1985).

Mil1er v. Mercv Hospital., 105 S.Ct. 1441 (1985).

Terre.tr1 v- International Association of Machinists, 456 U.S. 972
(1e82).

Shipp v. Memphis Area Office, 44o U.S. 980 (1979).

Jones v. Cit'r of Memphis, 44O U.S. 914 (1979).

Johnson v. Rvder Truck Lines, 44O U.S. 979 (1979).

Lewis v. Philip Morris Co., 439 U.S. 1089 (1979).

AJ.exander v. Aero Lodqe No. 735, 436 U.S. 946 (1978).

Townsend v. Nassau Countv Medicaf Center, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978).

Drevful. v. Von Flnck, 429 U.S. 835 (1976).

McAuLiff v. Carlson , 427 U. S. 91 1 ( 1976 ) .

Waters v. W:.sconsin Steel 90ori<s , 425 U. S. 997 ( 19?6 ) .

Harris v. ALleqhenv-Ludi.um Industries, I4e-, 125 U.S. 94.1 (i976) .

Davis v. Board of Schoo] Commissioners, 425 U.S. 944 t1976).

Jordan v. G11liqan, 427 U.S. 991 (1975).

Bridgeport Guardian v. Members of the Bridqeport Clvif Sertrices
Commission, 427 U.S. 991 (:.975).



fhomoson v. ShEppard, 42O U.S. 984 (1975) '

Colllsan v. Actlvltles CIu , 4O4 U.S. 1004 (19'71).

Menoranda ln Oppoaition to Certlorarl:

Intrrnatlonal Moldars Unlon v. Howard, 90 t.Ed.2d 988 (1986)'

cttv of Littlc Rock v.-HaLLtAlp, 89 L.Ed.2d 9Og (1986)'

Pullnan-Standard co. v. F-tnkgrd, 74 L.Ed.2d 254 ( 1983) .

P1llsburv co. v. Donaldson, 434 U.S. 857 (197?) '

Aucrlcan tobaeeo eq. v. Patterson, 429 U.S. 92O (1976).



APPENDIX C

GINGLES v. THORNBPRG

Eric Schnapper

Date

1985

July 29

30

Aug. 1

2

5

6

7

I

9

L2

13

L4

15

15

19

20

27

22

23

25

26

Item

Prepare Brief for APPellees

lr ll ll tl

Hours

ll

ll

r

ll

ll

lt

lt

lt

ll

'l

n

1t

ll

'l

il

ll

It

ll

ll

It

ll

ll

It

lt

tl

il

'l

'l

It

lt

il

rt.tl

2.O

8.1

4.2

3.8

1.9

9.7

6.9

3.8

{.0

9.?

8.1

8.2

7.5

9.9

9.4

9.O

10.0

9.4

10.4

2.5

8.3

146.8

It

C/fwd.



Date

Aug. 27

28

29

.30
Nov.18

Item

Prepare Brief
t1 ll

ll tl

ilIt

B/ fwd.

for Appellees
n ll

ilIt

il ll

Hours

146.8

9.8

7.3

8.1

1.O

4.2

177.2

Help prepare for oral argument