Blanchard v. Bergeron
Civil rights plaintiffs can collect reasonable court-awarded attorney fees beyond private contingency contracts, as Court rejects treating a client-lawyer contingency deal as an automatic cap on fee awards.
Real-world impact
- Allows civil-rights plaintiffs to recover court-ordered fees beyond private contingency percentages.
- Requires defendants to pay reasonable attorney fees based on hours and rates.
- Leaves paralegal and law-clerk billing decisions for lower courts to decide later.
Topics
Summary
Background
Arthur Blanchard, a man who said he was beaten by a sheriff's deputy in a Louisiana bar, sued under federal civil-rights law and on a state negligence claim. A jury awarded him $10,000 on the civil-rights claim. Blanchard asked the court for over $40,000 in attorney's fees under the law that lets prevailing civil-rights plaintiffs recover fees. The District Court awarded $7,500 in fees; the Court of Appeals cut the award to $4,000 because Blanchard had a contract that gave his lawyer 40% of any recovery.
Reasoning
The main question was whether a private contingency-fee contract must limit what a court can order under the federal fee law. The Court explained that the statute allows courts to award a "reasonable" fee and courts normally calculate that by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate (the "lodestar" approach). A contingency agreement is one factor to consider but it cannot automatically cap the court's award. If the contracted percentage is less than a reasonable fee, the defendant should pay the higher amount; if it is more than reasonable, the defendant need not pay above the reasonable fee.
Real world impact
The ruling means civil-rights plaintiffs and their lawyers can seek fees based on standard billing measures rather than be automatically limited by their private contingency deals. Defendants in civil-rights suits may have to pay higher attorney fees when a court finds them reasonable. The Court returned the case to the lower court to recalculate fees; it left open whether paralegal or law-clerk time should be separately billed.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia joined the judgment but disagreed with parts of the Court's use of legislative history.
Opinions in this case
- 1.Opinion 9431564
- 2.Opinion 9431565
- 3.Opinion 112196
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?”
- “How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?”
- “What are the practical implications of this ruling?”