Term: 2007
Docket: 06-1717
Richlin Security Service Company v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary Of Homeland Security
- Pro
06-1717 RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. V. CHERTOFF DECISION BELOW: 472 F3d 1370 CERT. GRANTED 11/13/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), may a prevailing party be awarded attorney fees for paralegal services at the market rate for such services, as four circuits have held, or does EAJA limit reimbursement for paralegal services to cost only, as the Federal Circuit panel majority below held? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2006-1055
The U.S. Supreme Court case Richlin Security Service Company v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security (2007) revolved around the issue of whether paralegal services should be compensated at market rates under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The EAJA allows certain parties who prevail against the United States in court to recover fees and other expenses. Richlin Security Service Company had successfully challenged a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals and sought reimbursement for its legal costs, including those related to paralegal services, under EAJA. However, it was denied full compensation on grounds that paralegals were not considered independent professionals whose services could be billed separately from attorneys' fees but rather part of general overhead costs included within lawyers’ hourly rates. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Richlin, stating that cost incurred for paralegal services is compensable under EAJA as long as it reflects "prevailing market rates" and does not exceed an attorney's rate.
In the dissenting opinion for Richlin Security Service Company v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, Justice Samuel Alito argued that paralegal services should not be compensated at market rates under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). He contended that EAJA's language and legislative history suggest Congress intended to limit reimbursement to "reasonable" costs incurred by attorneys in individual cases - which he interpreted as actual cost rather than prevailing market rate. Alito also pointed out potential issues with determining a fair market rate for paralegals who often have varying levels of education and experience. Furthermore, he expressed concern about incentivizing law firms to hire more expensive independent contractors instead of less costly in-house staff if they could recover fees at higher market rates. Ultimately, his interpretation was based on a belief that EAJA aimed to control litigation expenses while still providing adequate representation for individuals against government entities.
