In the case of Hall et al. v. Cole, 1972, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a union member who had been expelled from his union for whistle-blowing on corrupt practices within it. The plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees under Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The court held that an award of counsel fees to a successful litigant could be justified not only by common benefit principle but also by bad faith principle where defendant acted in bad faith, vexatiously or oppressively. This decision established that unions cannot retaliate against members who expose corruption and further clarified when courts may award attorney’s fees under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Hall et al. v. Cole, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to award attorney fees under Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). He argued that this provision does not explicitly authorize such awards, nor does it imply them as a necessary means of enforcing its provisions. The LMRDA was designed to protect union members from improper actions by their leaders, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every successful plaintiff should receive attorney fees. Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress had specifically provided for fee-shifting in other statutes when they intended it; thus their silence on this matter within the LMRDA suggests an intentional omission rather than an oversight or ambiguity. Therefore, according to Justice Rehnquist’s interpretation of legislative intent and statutory language, plaintiffs who successfully sue under Section 102 should bear their own legal costs unless otherwise specified by law.