|
Sponsor Statement for SB 183 An Act relating to public interest litigants and to attorney fees; and amending Rule 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure.
Senate Bill 183 makes public interest litigants subject to Court Civil Rule 82 regarding judgments for attorneys' fees, thus adopting a uniform standard for all litigants. Courts would continue to have the authority to award higher or full attorney fees when a court felt exceptional circumstances justified a higher award. Through Alaska Supreme Court decisions, a doctrine known as the Public Interest Litigant Doctrine (PILD) has been established. This doctrine is not codified in law or set out in any court procedure. The courts apparently created the PILD as social policy to encourage private plaintiffs to advocate for issues that are deemed by the court to be "in the public interest." Civil Rule 82 sets out a formula for the reimbursement of attorney fees to be collected by a prevailing party in a legal action. Court Civil Rule 82 limits attorney's fees recovery by prevailing litigants to 20 percent of the litigant's reasonable actual attorney's fees incurred on a case resolved without trial and 30 percent for those cases that go to trial. PILD creates an exception to Civil Rule 82 by allowing the courts to classify a party as a "public interest litigant", thus allowing said party to collect full, reasonable, actual attorney fees if they prevail. And if they lose, the public interest litigant pays none of the prevailing party's attorney fees. Not even the innocent victims of violent crime who bring subsequent civil suit against criminals are allowed such generous attorney fees. Additionally, SB 183 prevents legal fees being awarded to a litigant for claims on which they did not prevail. Such awards serve to promote spurious lawsuits, since plaintiffs know they will receive compensation for all costs even if they only win on one of several points. This problem was created by the recent Alaska Supreme Court Decision Dansereau v. Ulmer 955 P.2d 916 1998. Prior to Dansereau v. Ulmer lawyer fees for public interest litigants were only awarded for issues on which they prevailed. Dansereau v. Ulmer sets a precedent that allows courts to award the lawyer fees for all contested points even if the public interest litigants only prevailed on one point. SB 183 includes a provision that gives the courts the flexibility to continue to follow the Dansereau case and/or award higher or full attorney fees when the court finds exceptional circumstances to justify a higher award. SB 183 seeks to prevent awards of lawyer fees of $150 or more an hour to special interest litigating organizations that have staff attorney's on salary for $30 - $40 per hour. When organizations are awarded such unnecessarily high lawyer fees they are able to utilize the embellished award to not only pay their in house lawyers but to also finance political and advocacy operations. It is wrong that the current system is being exploited in this way. The Senate Finance Committee introduced SB 183 to make "public interest litigants" equally accountable for their lawsuits and to protect the state from having to pay excessive lawyer fees for frivolous public litigant cases. Based on claims paid in recent years this legislation could save the state hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. A similar bill passed the State Senate in 2000. However, the legislation, sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee, failed to get a hearing in the House of Representatives. # # # Attachments:
| Sen. Donley's Page | Senate Finance Committee Page | | Top |
Home |
Site Search |
Breaking News |
Legislators |
Bills |
The Official Web Site of the House and Senate Legislative Majorities |
|
||||||||||||||