Blanchard v. Bergeron
Headline: 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.
Holding:
- 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.
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:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
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?