Term: 2009
Docket: 08-970
Sonny Perdue, Governor Of Georgia, Et Al. v. Kenny A., By His Next Friend Linda Winn, Et Al.
- Pro
08-970 PERDUE, GOV. OF GA V. KENNY A. DECISION BELOW: 532 F.3d 1209 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 4/6/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Can a reasonable attorney's fee award under a federal fee-shifting statute ever be enhanced based solely on quality of performance and results obtained when these factors already are included in the lodestar calculation? 2. Is an enhancement to the lodestar based on quality of representation and results obtained contrary to this Court's decisions in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (1986), and City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992), particularly after the lodestar has been reduced for excessive hours billed? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-15514, 06-15874
The U.S. Supreme Court case Sonny Perdue, Governor of Georgia, et al. v. Kenny A., by his next friend Linda Winn, et al., 2009 revolved around the issue of attorney's fees in a class-action lawsuit against the state of Georgia for alleged deficiencies in its foster care system. The plaintiffs won and were awarded $10.5 million in legal fees based on their lawyers' market rates rather than their actual costs which was significantly lower at $2-3 million dollars range as per usual practice under federal law (42 USC §1988). The State appealed this decision arguing that it was excessive and violated federal law which typically limits fee awards to 150% of the cost incurred by attorneys representing public-interest clients pro bono or at reduced rates. In a unanimous ruling delivered by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court reversed this award stating that while there may be circumstances where an enhancement may be appropriate such as exceptional performance or extraordinary outlay expenses not normally reflected in hourly rates; no proper justification had been given for exceeding these parameters here making it unnecessary and unreasonable thus violating Federal Law.
In the dissenting opinion for Perdue v. Kenny A., Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, disagreed with the majority's decision to limit attorneys' fees in civil rights cases. They argued that this could discourage competent lawyers from taking on such cases due to financial constraints. The dissenters believed that a "bonus" or enhancement should be allowed if it is necessary to attract capable counsel in certain complex and risky litigation scenarios. They also pointed out that many other areas of law allow enhancements based on superior performance or results obtained, making it unfair not to do so in civil rights cases as well. Furthermore, they expressed concern about judges being able to determine what constitutes "extraordinary" circumstances warranting an increase in fees without clear guidelines from Congress or previous court decisions.
