Who pays for the legal battle over same-sex marriage?
April 18, 2015 6:31 PM Subscribe
As a historic constitutional showdown over gay marriage looms this month at the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys are fighting over another bitterly disputed issue: their fees. In some cases, the fee requests run well into seven figures and are submitted on behalf of powerful law firms that a Reuters examination found have outsized access to the Supreme Court. Individuals and advocacy groups that file lawsuits aimed at the high court sometimes retain big-firm lawyers who specialize in arguing in that forum and boast remarkable success rates in getting their cases heard.
Interesting. I always kind of assumed the lawyers in these same-sex marriage were being paid by HRC or GLAAD or another organization like that.
posted by riruro at 7:02 PM on April 18, 2015
posted by riruro at 7:02 PM on April 18, 2015
Interesting. I always kind of assumed the lawyers in these same-sex marriage were being paid by HRC or GLAAD or another organization like that.
The non-profit orgs provide pro bono counsel for some plaintiffs, but many of these plaintiffs have private counsel, or at least private co-counsel.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The non-profit orgs provide pro bono counsel for some plaintiffs, but many of these plaintiffs have private counsel, or at least private co-counsel.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
“They used a howitzer to kill a gnat,” wrote Tulsa County, Oklahoma, in objecting to a $368,827 fee request in January.Their freedom-to-marry lawsuit was pending for nine fucking years until DOMA was struck down. Some gnat. Pay up.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 7:11 PM on April 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
I do work under a fee shifting statute, and in 99% of instances no one is getting rich off taking these cases. For these cases, the requests may be unreasonable, but it sounds like big firms are requesting their market rates for important and difficult work. It's good to be careful responding to numbers that seem huge, but actually aren't when you think about paying lots of very good lawyers to do lots of work.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:24 PM on April 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:24 PM on April 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'd like to see a law passed that lawmakers who defend and support laws that are found unconstitutional have to give up a percentage of their pay towards paying the legal costs. It'll never happen, but man would it make them think twice.
posted by NotATailor at 7:29 PM on April 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by NotATailor at 7:29 PM on April 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Well, the ACA came awfully close to being found unconstitutional.
posted by alexei at 8:32 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by alexei at 8:32 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:44 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:44 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd like to see a law passed that lawmakers who defend and support laws that are found unconstitutional have to give up a percentage of their pay towards paying the legal costs. It'll never happen, but man would it make them think twice.
I thought that too, but of course you can have good intentions and still create laws that could, under the right circumstances, be found unconstitutional.
posted by clockzero at 10:27 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I thought that too, but of course you can have good intentions and still create laws that could, under the right circumstances, be found unconstitutional.
posted by clockzero at 10:27 PM on April 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
As part of a larger agenda, this is a brilliantly devious strategy.
1. Cut government budgets under the guise of fiscal austerity
2. Pass laws that are designed to be subject to court review
3. Burden government coffers with court proceedings
It's really part-and-parcel with the successful strategy of appointing incompetent people to critical governmental roles, so you can later point out that government just doesn't work.
posted by yesster at 10:36 PM on April 18, 2015
1. Cut government budgets under the guise of fiscal austerity
2. Pass laws that are designed to be subject to court review
3. Burden government coffers with court proceedings
It's really part-and-parcel with the successful strategy of appointing incompetent people to critical governmental roles, so you can later point out that government just doesn't work.
posted by yesster at 10:36 PM on April 18, 2015
Seems like some bigoted legislators and taxpayers have to pay the political and economic costs for their decisions. I guess one argument is that we don't want to give bigots another excuse to hate us, but they hate us anyway. May as well make their hatred cost them something tangible.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:03 PM on April 18, 2015
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:03 PM on April 18, 2015
NotATailor: "I'd like to see a law passed that lawmakers who defend and support laws that are found unconstitutional have to give up a percentage of their pay towards paying the legal costs. It'll never happen, but man would it make them think twice."
It sounds like you imagine that most cases before the SCOTUS are of the nature of, "Should Texas be allowed to restart slavery?".
In fact, most cases are very nuanced. The law is not a black-and-white arena between Good and Evil. Punishing skilled lawyers for attempting to represent their clients' interests is in no way good for ... anyone.
posted by IAmBroom at 5:36 AM on April 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
It sounds like you imagine that most cases before the SCOTUS are of the nature of, "Should Texas be allowed to restart slavery?".
In fact, most cases are very nuanced. The law is not a black-and-white arena between Good and Evil. Punishing skilled lawyers for attempting to represent their clients' interests is in no way good for ... anyone.
posted by IAmBroom at 5:36 AM on April 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
FTFA:
This is bullshit outragery. These lawyers are, in effect, assisting in the process by which our government will exert power for far longer than the policies of any POTUS.
I'm OK with Thurgood Marshall (AND his opposition team) being paid a premium. I want the best of the best in this arena.
posted by IAmBroom at 5:46 AM on April 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Individuals and advocacy groups that file lawsuits aimed at the high court sometimes retain big-firm lawyers who specialize in arguing in that forum and boast remarkable success rates in getting their cases heard.So... If I'm understanding this controversy correctly, lawyers who specialize and excel in this sort of unique, arcane section of law can demand higher fees than the guy who sues your former employer for two months backpay?
This is bullshit outragery. These lawyers are, in effect, assisting in the process by which our government will exert power for far longer than the policies of any POTUS.
I'm OK with Thurgood Marshall (AND his opposition team) being paid a premium. I want the best of the best in this arena.
posted by IAmBroom at 5:46 AM on April 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
These lawyers are, in effect, assisting in the process by which our government will exert power for far longer than the policies of any POTUS.
I agree with this and with the other comments in general. But I'm about halfway through the special report linked in the article about the outsized influence of a relatively small number of lawyers on the SCOTUS and the bigger picture that this fits into seems more alarming:
A Reuters examination of nine years of cases shows that 66 of the 17,000 lawyers who petitioned the Supreme Court succeeded at getting their clients’ appeals heard at a remarkable rate. Their appeals were at least six times more likely to be accepted by the court than were all others filed by private lawyers during that period...
...Of the 66 most successful lawyers, 51 worked for law firms that primarily represented corporate interests. In cases pitting the interests of customers, employees or other individuals against those of companies, a leading attorney was three times more likely to launch an appeal for business than for an individual, Reuters found...
...Some scholars say reliance on the expert bar has made for a far more insular court. “We don’t want the justices to filter cases through advocates,” said Jenny Roberts, associate dean at American University’s law school. “If this is happening, delegating the discretion of cases to a sort of sub-Supreme Court when so much is at stake is troublesome. It’s fine if you trust and agree with those in control, but what happens when you don’t?”
posted by triggerfinger at 10:36 AM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I agree with this and with the other comments in general. But I'm about halfway through the special report linked in the article about the outsized influence of a relatively small number of lawyers on the SCOTUS and the bigger picture that this fits into seems more alarming:
A Reuters examination of nine years of cases shows that 66 of the 17,000 lawyers who petitioned the Supreme Court succeeded at getting their clients’ appeals heard at a remarkable rate. Their appeals were at least six times more likely to be accepted by the court than were all others filed by private lawyers during that period...
...Of the 66 most successful lawyers, 51 worked for law firms that primarily represented corporate interests. In cases pitting the interests of customers, employees or other individuals against those of companies, a leading attorney was three times more likely to launch an appeal for business than for an individual, Reuters found...
...Some scholars say reliance on the expert bar has made for a far more insular court. “We don’t want the justices to filter cases through advocates,” said Jenny Roberts, associate dean at American University’s law school. “If this is happening, delegating the discretion of cases to a sort of sub-Supreme Court when so much is at stake is troublesome. It’s fine if you trust and agree with those in control, but what happens when you don’t?”
posted by triggerfinger at 10:36 AM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older “One person’s putrid is another person’s pleasant.... | Lord of the Shadows Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by localroger at 6:47 PM on April 18, 2015 [8 favorites]