The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision today authored by Gorsuch, Sotomayor wrote dissent joined by the other liberal Justices. Reminds me of the truck driver case that caused so much consternation during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. Like that case: it was a matter of statutory interpretation and not a big controversial social issue; involved a sympathetic set of facts; and the law seems like it could almost be read either way.
The basic facts from the link:
The case concerned Charles Murphy, an Illinois inmate badly beaten by prison guards, who crushed his eye socket. Mr. Murphy sued the guards, winning about $307,000 and $108,000 in attorney’s fees.
The question in the case was how to interpret a federal law that says in such cases “a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.”
A trial judge ordered Mr. Murphy to pay 10 percent of his award to his lawyers, but an appeals court ruled that the law required the full 25 percent.
I don’t understand, wouldn’t what the attorneys get depend on the agreement made between them and Charles Murphy?
I don’t know much about this topic but this situation only concerns what happens when a court awards attorneys’ fees - which normally means the losing party pays the amount the judge awards for those fees (on top of any judgment).
That amount awarded for fees may be different than the attorneys’ actual bill. There is another part of the law that says the client can agree to pay amounts greater than the court awards but these cases typically involve people who do not have money (and may not get a big judgment).
When the court awards $108,000 we would expect the losing party to pay that. But there is this law that says a portion of the judgment must be used to pay attorneys’ fees. Anything above that would be paid by the losing party.
It looks like a simple law to interpret but it’s tricky when you starting focusing on certain words and thinking about what the intended purpose of the law is.