An American judge has incurred the wrath of
small firm lawyers everywhere by declaring that those working in small firms
aren't worth the same as those working in big firms.
Lawyerist.com reports that Alan Gura, a
lawyer with a small US firm who
successfully challenged Washington
D.C.'s gun ban, had his fees cut
dramatically because he did not have to pay the overheads of large firms.
Apparently, Gura took the gun case all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court and toiled for six years to win what was thought by
many to be an unwinnable case.
But when it came to sorting out the dosh, Judge
Sullivan of the Federal Court found that Gura's work was not "sufficiently
exceptional" to justify the requested enhanced award of $589 per hour and, quite
simply, as a small firm lawyer, Gura didn't deserve the big fat fees demanded
by lawyers in large firms.
The judge thus slashed his fees by two
thirds, calling his performance "unremarkable". This was despite the fact that,
at an earlier hearing, Sullivan waxed lyrical about how lucky the district was
to have such "outstanding lawyers from outstanding firms" working on the case.
Blogger Carolyn Elefant vented her spleen
on myshingle.com, saying, "Judge Sullivan's decision is outrageous ...Courts have
fairly wide latitude in awarding attorneys' fees. Judge Sullivan could have
exercised his power to reach a decision more favorable to Gura and his team,
but he didn't ... In my view, the decision results from an utter lack of
understanding of, and respect for, the work that solo and small firm lawyers
do."
Indeed.
