Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
October 1, 1984

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, 1984. 58c54842-ba9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ee6d7bed-100e-4cfa-b841-be5db8ba9a5a/laffey-v-northwest-airlines-inc-brief-amicus-curiae-in-support-of-the-petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
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