Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
No. 94-1674 (3d Cir. Mar. 2, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 12902
Description
Third Circuit Reduces Fee Award in Challenge to Pennsylvania’s Provision of Medical Care to Persons with Mental Retardation
Abstract
The Third Circuit has reduced plaintiffs’ award for attorney
fees and expenses in this action seeking appropriate medical care
for persons with mental retardation. The parties reached a
settlement in 1985. In 1987, plaintiffs sought an order holding
defendant state officials in contempt for failing to adhere to the
terms of the consent decree. Extended efforts to settle resulted in
an agreement in 1991. However, this also failed to resolve the
dispute, and plaintiffs renewed their 1987 motion. In 1993, the
court found defendants in contempt, and plaintiffs subsequently
moved for fees and expenses. The court ordered defendants to pay
plaintiff Association of Retarded Citizens of Pennsylvania $222,239
in fees and expenses, and defendants appealed. The Third Circuit
held that time plaintiff’s counsel spent writing press
releases, speaking with reporters, and otherwise publicizing the
contempt motion was not compensable. Holding that the proper forum
for litigation is the courtroom, not the media, the appellate court
found it inappropriate to allow public relations expenses while the
case was pending before the district court judge who had approved
the consent decree and subsequent settlement agreement. The court
also disallowed fees for time lead counsel spent accompanying
nontestifying experts on various site visits; it concluded that
this work could have been delegated to nonprofessional assistants.
Finding no evidence of the necessity for the nontestifying
experts’ consultations, the court also disallowed fees for
their expenses. In addition, the court reduced the fee award for
time counsel spent consulting with those experts. However, the
court rejected defendants’ motion for an across-the-board
reduction in plaintiff’s request for fees. Accordingly, the
court reduced plaintiff’s fee award by $67,505.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
