Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

    No. 84-1655

I n t h e

(&mxt nt tip Initpfc ^tata
October Term, 1984

M art  P. L ai-fey. et al.,

v.

Northwest Airlines, I nc.,

Petitioners,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR A W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE NAACP LEGAL 
DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR A 
WRIT OF CERTIORARI

J ulius L eY onne Chambers 
Charles Stephen R alston 

(Counsel of Record)
99 Hudson Street 
16th Floor
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae



INDEX

Page

I n t e r e s t  o f  the Amicus . . . . . .  1

Summary o f  Argument . . . . . . .  4

Argument

C e r t i o r a r i  Should Be Granted 
Because The Case Raises 
Issues  o f  C ruc ia l  Importance 
to  The P r ivate  Enforcement o f  
The C i v i l  Rights Laws . . . .  5

C onclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15



Table o f  A u t h o r i t i e s

Page

C ases :

Blum v .  Stenson, U.S. ,
79 L .E d .2d 891 (1984) . . . 4 ,  7, 12

Jones v .  Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364
( 5th C i r .  1981 ) .................................11

Vulcan S o c 'y  v .  F ire  Department,
533 F. Supp. 1054
(S .D.N.Y. 1982) . . . . . . . .  12

Other A u t h o r i t i e s :

Counsel Fees In P u b l ic  I n t e r e s t
L i t i g a t i o n ,  39 Record o f  the 
A s s o c ia t i o n  o f  the Bar o f  the 
C ity  o f  New York 300 (1984) .11 ,  12

S.Rep. No. 94-1011 (94th Cong. ,
2nd S ess .  1976) . . . . . . . .  14



No. 84-1655

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OP THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

MARY P. LAFFEY, e t  a l .  ,

P e t i t i o n e r s ,

v.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.

Respondent.

On P e t i t i o n  f o r  A Writ o f  C e r t i o r a r i  to  
The United States  Court o f  Appeals f o r  

The D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia C ir c u i t

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE NAACP 
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 
FUND, INC. IN SUPPORT OF THE 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF 
CERTIORARI

I n t e r e s t  o f  the Amicus*

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educa­

t i o n a l .  Fund, I n c . ,  i s  a n o n - p r o f i t

♦ L e t t e r s  o f  consent  from both p a r t i e s  to  
the  f i l i n g  o f  t h i s  b r i e f  have been lodged 
with the c l e r k  o f  C ourt .



2

c o r p o r a t i o n ,  in c o r p o r a t e d  under the laws 

o f  the State  o f  New York in 1939. I t  was 

formed t o  a s s i s t  Blacks t o  secure  t h e i r  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t s  by the p ro s e cu t io n  

o f  l a w s u i t s .  I t s  char ter  d e c la r e s  that 

i t s  p u r p o s e s  i n c l u d e  rendering l e g a l  aid 

g r a t u i t o u s l y  to  Blacks s u f f e r i n g  i n j u s t i c e  

by r e a s o n  o f  race  who are unable ,  on 

a c c o u n t  o f  p o v e r ty ,  t o  employ l e g a l  

c o u n s e l  on t h e i r  own b e h a l f .  For many 

y e a r s  i t s  a t t o rn e y s  have represented  

p a r t i e s  and have p a r t i c i p a t e d  as amicus 

c u r i a e  in  t h i s  Court and in the lower 

f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  in cases  in v o lv in g  many 

f a c e t s  o f  the law.

Amicus has a deep i n t e r e s t  in the 

q u e s t io n  o f  the standards by which counsel  

f e e  determ inat ions  should be made, both as 

t h o s e  s ta n d a r d s  a f f e c t  the Fund d i r e c t l y



3

and as th e y  a f f e c t  p r iv a t e  a t t o rn e y s .  In 

v i r t u a l l y  a l l  o f  the Fund's cases  i t  is  

a s s o c i a t e d  with a t torn eys  in p r iv a t e  

p r a c t i c e ,  m ost ly  in small f i rm s .  Our 

e x p e r i e n c e  e s t a b l i s h e s  that awards o f  

a d eq u a te  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  are a b s o lu t e ly  

e s s e n t i a l  f o r  the cont inu ing  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  

o f  such a t t o r n e y s  in the enforcement o f  

c i v i l  r i g h t s . For these r e a s o n s , amicus 

has p a r t i c i p a t e d  in many o f  the leading  

cases  in v o lv in g  a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s  q u e s t i o n s , 

both  as c o u n s e l ,  e » g . , Newman v .  P ig g ie  

Park E n t e r p r i s e s , 390 U. S . 400 (1 968 ) ;  

B r a d le y  v .  School Board o f  C ity  o f  

R ichm ond, 416 U. S. 696 (1974 ) ;  Hutto v, 

F i n n e y , 437 U.S.  678 (1 978 ) ;  and Johnson 

v .  G e o r g ia  Highway Express C o . , 488 F. 2d 

714 ( 5th C i r . 1974), and as amicus c u r i a e , 
e . g , , C h r i s t ia n s b u r g  Garment Co. v .  EEOC,

434 U.S. 412 (1978 ) ;  Hensley v .  E ckerhart ,



4

461 U .S ,  424 (1 9 8 3 ) ;  Blum v .  S tenson , ____

U .S .  ____, 79 L . Ed.2d 891 (1984 ) ;  Copeland

v .  M a r s h a l l , 641 F. 2d 880 (D.C. C i r .

1980).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

C e r t i o r a r i  should be granted because 

o f  the  d e l e t e r i o u s  impact o f  the d e c i s i o n  

be low  on the  p r i v a t e  enforcement o f  the 

c i v i l  r i g h t s  laws.  The d e c i s i o n ' s

m e c h a n i c a l  equat ion  o f  an a t t o r n e y ' s  

b i l l i n g  r a t e  with h i s  or  her market ra te  

would p e n a l i z e  a t to rn e y s  who are w i l l i n g  

t o  ta k e  on c i v i l  r i g h t s  cases  at reduced 

f e e s .  I t  would p a r t i c u l a r l y  a f f e c t  those  

f i r m s  which have p u b l i c  i n t e r e s t  l i t i g a ­

t i o n  as a major p o r t i o n  o f  t h e i r  p r a c t i c e .  

The d e c i s i o n  i s  in c o n f l i c t  with t h i s  

C o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  in Blum v .  S tenson ,

U .S .   79 L.Ed.2a 891 (1 984 ) ,  with the

d e c i s i o n s  o f  o th er  c i r c u i t s ,  and with the



5

i n t e n t  o f  Congress when i t  enacted the 

v a r iou s  c i v i l  r i g h t s  f e e s  s t a t u t e s .

ARGUMENT

CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE 
THE CASE RAISES ISSUES OF CRUCIAL 
IMPORTANCE TO THE PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT 
OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.

As expla ined  in the statement o f  

i n t e r e s t , the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, in 

common with o ther  n a t ion a l  p u b l i c

i n t e r e s t  1 i t i t a t i o n  o r g a n i z a t i o n s , depends 

h e a v i l y  on the  e f f o r t s  o f  a t to rn ey s  in 

p r i v a t e  p r a c t i c e  f o r  the carry ing  out o f  

i t s  program . Thus,, although the d e c i s i o n  

below, which holds  that a t torn eys  employed 

by p u b l i c  i n t e r e s t  o r g a n iz a t io n s  can 

r e c e i v e  a f u l l  market r a t e ,  would not 

a f f e c t  the  f e e s  recovered  by the Fund 

i t s e l f , i t  would have a dev a sta t in g  e f f e c t  

on the  Fund' s a b i l i t y  to  e n l i s t  p r iv a te  

a t t o r n e y s  t o  carry  out i t s  m iss ion  o f



6

p r o v i d i n g  l e g a l  a s s i s t a n c e  t o  persons 

u n a b le  t o  pay a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s .  This 

r e s u l t  f o l l o w s  from the d e c i s i o n  o f  the 

c o u r t  b e lo w  on both the issue  o f  computa­

t i o n  o f  the l o d e s t a r  ra te  and the issue  o f  

the  a l l o w a n c e  o f  a cont ingency  adjustment 

t o  ta k e  account  o f  the r i s k s  o f  such 

l i t i g a t i o n .

The impact o f  the d e c i s i o n  below has 

a l r e a d y  been f e l t  in the D i s t r i c t  o f  

Columbia. To amicus1 knowledge the number 

o f  a t t o r n e y s  in small and s i n g l e  p r a c t i ­

t i o n e r  f i r m s  who can cont inue  t o  take on 

the  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  o f  the average c i v i l  

r i g h t s  p l a i n t i f f  has been s e r i o u s l y  

a f f e c t e d  by the  L a f fey  d e c i s i o n .  A t t o r ­

neys have been fo r c e d  t o  r e s t r i c t  t h e i r  

c i v i l  r i g h t s  p r a c t i c e  to  those few c l i e n t s  

who can a f f o r d  to  pay a f u l l  market r a t e .  

They are  e c o n o m i c a l l y  unable t o  continue



7

t h e i r  p r i o r  p r a c t i c e  o f  b i l l i n g  c i v i l  

r i g h t s  c l i e n t s  e i t h e r  not at a l l  or  at a 

r e d u ce d  r a t e ,  s in ce  under the d e c i s i o n  

b e lo w  such p r a c t i c e s  would e s t a b l i s h  what 

they may r e c e i v e  by a c o u r t .

We urge that the p e t i t i o n  f o r  a writ  

o f  c e r t i o r a r i  should be granted because 

the  d e c i s i o n  o f  the court  below is  

fu n d a m e n ta l ly  in c o n s i s t e n t  with the 

d e c i s i o n  o f  t h i s  Court in Blum v .  S tenson ,

_____ U .S .  , 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 ( 1984) ,

w ith  the  d e c i s i o n s  o f  v i r t u a l l y  every 

o t h e r  c o u r t  o f  ap p ea ls ,  and with the 

l e g i s l a t i v e  h i s t o r y  and purposes o f  the 

v a r i o u s  c i v i l  r i g h t s  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  

s t a t u t e s .

The d e c i s i o n  below would e s t a b l i s h  

two c a t e g o r i e s  o f  c i v i l  r i g h t s  p r a c t i ­

t i o n e r s ,  one fa v o re d  and one d i s f a v o r e d .  

The f a v o r e d  c a te g o ry  would c o n s i s t  o f



8

f i r m s  w ith  h igh  b i l l i n g  ra tes  and c l i e n t s  

a b le  t o  a f f o r d  those  ra te s  and p u b l i c  

i n t e r e s t  o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,  which would be 

ab le  t o  use the same high b i l l i n g  r a te s  t o  

e s t a b l i s h  the market value o f  t h e i r  

a t t o r n e y s ’ work s in ce  they have no b i l l i n g  

p r a c t i c e s  o f  t h e i r  own. The d i s fa v o r e d  

c a t e g o r y  would c o n s i s t  o f  the f irm s that 

h a n d le  the  bulk  o f  c i v i l  r i g h t s  c a s e s ,  

p a r t i c u l a r l y  in d iv id u a l  employment 

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  cases  on b e h a l f  o f  s i n g l e  

em ployees .

Firms engaged in a c t i v e  c i v i l  r i g h t s  

p r a c t i c e ,  w ith  whom amicus works through­

ou t  the  c o u n t r y ,  must o f  n e c e s s i t y  charge 

t h e i r  c l i e n t s  l e s s  than a f a i r  market rate  

b e c a u s e  the  o r d in a r y  p l a i n t i f f ,  even one 

w ith  an income in  the m id-ranges ,  s imply 

cannot a f f o r d  t o  pay f e e s  at market r a t e s .  

Take ,  f o r  exam ple ,  a T i t l e  VII p l a i n t i f f



9

c h a l l e n g i n g  i l l e g a l  d i s c r im in a t i o n  in the 

form o f  the  d e n ia l  o f  a promotion with a 

c a s e  t h a t  must go through the adm inistra ­

t i v e  p r o c e s s  and t r i a l  in d i s t r i c t  court  

in  o r d e r  t o  o b t a i n  f u l l  i n ju n c t i v e  and 

back pay r e l i e f .  Such l i t i g a t i o n  can 

e a s i l y  r e s u l t  in a t t o r n e y s '  f e e  in excess  

o f  $ 5 0 *0 0 0 .  Given the r i s k  o f  l o s i n g ,  i t  

would s im p ly  not  make economic sense f o r  

such a p l a i n t i f f  t o  pay an at to rn ey  at a 

f u l l  market r a te .

Thus,  i t  i s  common f o r  a t torn eys  who 

have r e g u l a r  c i v i l  r i g h t s  p r a c t i c e s  t o  

r e p r e s e n t  c l i e n t s  at no charge at a l l  or  

t o  b i l l  ou t  at a ra te  s u b s t a n t i a l l y  lower 

than t h a t  they  could  r e c e i v e  from the 

market in  o ther  types  o f  c a s e s .  The 

rem a ind er  o f  the f e e  i s  con t ingen t  on 

s u c c e s s  at t r i a l .  Hence, to  equate the 

a t t o r n e y ' s  b i l l i n g  ra te  with h i s  or  her



10

market r a t e  i s  simply wrong. To do so ,  

m o r e o v e r , imposes a p en a lty  o f  the 

s e v e r e s t  k ind upon a t torn eys  w i l l i n g  t o  

r i s k  r e c e i v i n g  l i t t l e  or  no f e e s  in order  

t o  do p r e c i s e l y  what Congress intended ,  

v i z . ,  r e p r e s e n t  persons  who otherw ise  

would be f i n a n c i a l l y  unable t o  pursue 

t h e i r  c i v i l  r i g h t s  c l a i m s .

Even when a f irm has a s u b s ta n t ia l  

com m erc ia l  p r a c t i c e  the mechanical 

equation o f  i t s  b i l l i n g  r a te s  in that  type 

o f  c a s e  w ith  a proper  market ra te  f o r  

c o n t i n g e n t - f e e ,  complex f e d e r a l  l i t i g a t i o n  

i s  i n a c c u r a t e . In the o rd in ary  commercial 

p r a c t i c e  a f irm w i l l  b i l l  out and get  paid  

on a c u r r e n t  b a s is  r e g a r d le s s  o f  the 

outcome o f  the  l i t i g a t i o n .  Consequently ,  

t h o s e  b i l l i n g  r a te s  w i l l  not prov ide  

a d equa te  com p ensat ion  f o r  con t in g en t  f e e  

1 i t  i g a t  i o n , f o r  they do "not  take in to



account the l o s s  in value o f  money because

o f  i n f l a t i o n  or the l o s s  o f  the use o f  the
1

money b e c a u s e  o f  de lay  in payment, '1 As 

the F i f t h  C i r c u i t  has s u c c i n c t l y  put i t :

Lawyers who are t o  be compensat­
ed o n l y  in the event o f  v i c t o r y  
e x p e c t  and are e n t i t l e d  to  be 
p a id  more when s u c c e s s fu l  than 
those  who are assured o f  
compensation re g a r d le s s  o f  
r e s u l t . This i s  n e i th e r  l e s s  
nor  more ap propr iate  in c i v i l  
r i g h t s  l i t i g a t i o n  than in 
p erson a l  in ju r y  ca s e s .  The 
standard  o f  compensation must 
enable  counsel  to  accept  
a p p a r e n t ly  ju s t  causes without 
await ing sure w inners .

Jones v .  Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1382 ( 5th 

C i r . 1981) (en b a n c ) .

A gain ,  the purpose o f  the f e e s  ac ts  

—  to  encourage a t torn eys  t o  take on these 

complex and lengthy cases  - -  must c o n t r o l . 

I f  e f f e c t i v e  r a t e s  in commercial l i t i g a ­

t i o n  are  h i g h e r  because fe e s  are r e ce iv e d

"Counsel Fees in Public Interest L itigation", Report 
of the Ctammittee on Legal Assistance, 39 The Record 
of the Association o f the Bar o f the City o f New York 
300, 318 (1984).



12

on time and without r i s k ,  " th e re  w i l l  be a

neg at ive  in c e n t iv e  to  move away from c i v i l

r i g h t s  l i t i g a t i o n  and to  concentra te

e f f o r t s  on more p r o f i t a b l e  asp ects  o f  the 
2

p r a c t i c e . "  See Vulcan S o c 8y v .  F ire

D epa rtm ent , 533 F. Supp. 1054, 1066

(S .D.N.Y. 1982).

Blum v .  S tenson , supra , and the 

d e c i s i o n s  from the o th er  c i r c u i t s  d i s ­

c u s s e d  in  the  p e t i t i o n  at pp. 18-19,  are 

i n c o n s i s t e n t  with the r e s u l t  the court  

b e lo w  r e a c h e s .  Those d e c i s i o n s  simply 

s t a t e  the  p r o p o s i t i o n  that  b i l l i n g  ra tes  

can p r o v i d e  a c on v en ien t  s t a r t in g  p o i n t ,  

and "may a f f o r d  r e le v a n t  comparisons" (79 

L . Ed.2d at 90 0 ,  n. 11 (emphasis a d d e d ) ) .  

They do not  h o l d  that  b i l l i n g  r a te s  w i l l

"Counsel Fees In Public Interest L itigation", op, 
c i t . supra n. 2, p. 326. As the report notes, a 
number of district courts, as well as the Association 
o f  the Bar i t s e l f ,  have found it  necessary to 
establish special programs to encourage the private 
bar to take on c iv il  rights cases. Id. at 326-27. 
This is at the same time when the need for private 
enforcement has become a ll the greater. Id. at 
324-26, and notes 171-175.



13

a b s o l u t e l y  f i x  the amount to  be awarded. 

As we have d i s c u s s e d  above, unless  the 

b i l l i n g  r a t e s  are f o r  comparable , i . e . , 

c o n t i n g e n t  and complex, l i t i g a t i o n ,  and 

are  e q u i v a l e n t  t o  those  that  would be 

charged to  c l i e n t s  f i n a n c i a l l y  ab le  to  pay 

the  f u l l  amount on a monthly b a s i s ,  they 

do not  e s t a b l i s h  the market value o f  the 

a t t o r n e y s '  s e r v i c e s  simply because the 

a t to rn ey  i s  with a f o r - p r o f i t  f i rm .

In sum, the i n e v i t a b l e  consequence o f  

the  d e c i s i o n  below would e i t h e r  make i t  

f i n a n c i a l l y  im poss ib le  f o r  the great  

m a j o r i t y  o f  c i v i l  r i g h t s  p l a i n t i f f s  to  

pu rsu e  t h e i r  c laims or  would d r iv e  

a t t o r n e y s  ou t  o f  c i v i l  r i g h t s  p r a c t i c e  in 

even g r e a t e r  numbers than at p r e s e n t .  

C o n g r e s s ,  however, intended to  f a c i l i t a t e  

the  c r e a t i o n  o f  an expanding and a c t iv e  

c i v i l  r i g h t s  bar comparable to  the bar



14

t h a t  e a g e r l y  takes on a n t i - t r u s t  and 

s e c u r i t i e s  c a s e s .  See S. Rep. No. 94-1011 

{94th Cong. ,  2d S e s s . ,  1976), pp. 5 -6 .

The message sent by the d e c i s i o n

b e l o w ,  h o w e v e r ,  i s  q u i t e  d i f f e r e n t  than
3

th a t  in te n d e d  by Congress. I t  says to

p r a c t i t i o n e r s  who are a c t i v e  in c i v i l  

r i g h t s  cases  t o  s ta y  away from such c a s e s ,  

e x c e p t  in  the  rare  in stan ce  when they are 

lucky enough to  f ind  a c l i e n t  ab le  t o  p lay  

a f u l l  f e e  every month, and to  con cen tra te  

on r e p r e s e n t i n g  regu la r  commercial

c l i e n t s .  Amicus can assure the Court that 

t h a t  message has been re ce iv e d  and 

u n d e r s t o o d  by the p r iv a t e  bar ;  we urge in

In this regard, it  is troubling that the decision 
below relies, in part, on a report to Congress o f  the 
National A ssociation  o f Attorneys General, whose 
stated purpose is  to convince Congress to amend the 
c iv i l  rights statutes to reduce the level o f  fees. 
746 F.2d at 12. The WAG report sets out a number o f 
purported reasons why the fee statutes should be 
amended to produce lower fees. For a contrasting 
exposition o f  the present state o f the law and a 
discussion o f why it  should not be charged we refer 
the Court to the recent report o f the Association o f 
the Bar o f  the City of  New York cited in note 1, 
supra.



15

the  s t r o n g e s t  terms that review o f  the 

d e c i s i o n  below is  e s s e n t i a l  t o  prevent the 

p r i v a t e  en forcem ent  o f  the c i v i l  r i g h t s  

a c t s  from being fu r th e r  undermined.

Conclusion

For the fo r e g o in g  reasons ,  the 

p e t i t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i  should 

be g r a n t e d ,  and the d e c i s i o n  o f  the court  

below should be rev e rse d .

R e s p e c t f u l l l y  submitted,

JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 

(Counsel o f  Record)
99 Hudson S tree t  
15th F loor
New York, N.Y. 10013 
(212) 219-1900

Attorneys f o r  Amicus Curiae



Hamilton Graphics, Inc.— 200 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y.— (212) 966-4177