Kay v. Ehrler

Background

A Florida-licensed lawyer asked Kentucky election officials to put his name on a party primary ballot but was turned down under a state law requiring national recognition. He sued the state twice, won both times in federal court, and after the second victory asked for attorney’s fees under the federal law that lets successful civil-rights plaintiffs recover legal costs. The lower courts denied his fee request and the Court agreed to decide whether a lawyer who represents himself may recover such fees.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the federal fee law covers a lawyer acting as his own lawyer. The Court examined the statute’s words and history and concluded that Congress intended fee awards to help citizens obtain independent counsel. The opinion explains that the term “attorney” implies an attorney-client relationship, and that even capable lawyers are at a disadvantage representing themselves because of ethical conflicts, loss of independent judgment, and practical courtroom difficulties. Allowing self-represented lawyers to collect fees would reduce the incentive to hire outside counsel, weakening the law’s goal of effective prosecution of meritorious civil-rights claims. For those reasons, the Court affirmed the denial of fees.

Real world impact

After this ruling, lawyers who represent themselves in civil-rights cases generally cannot collect attorney’s fees under the federal fee-shifting statute. The decision encourages plaintiffs to hire independent counsel to pursue civil-rights claims and clarifies how fee awards are awarded in federal courts.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting lower-court judge argued that the statute’s goals of promoting civil-rights suits and relieving plaintiffs’ costs supported awarding fees to prevailing lawyer-litigants, a view the Court rejected.