Missouri et al. v. Jenkins, by her friend, Agyei, et al.
491 U.S. 274 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, an award of attorney's fees against a State is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment from being enhanced to compensate for delay in payment. Furthermore, compensation for the work of paralegals, law clerks, and recent law graduates should be based on the prevailing market rates for their services, not their cost to the attorney, if separate billing is the local practice.
Facts:
- In 1977, the Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) and others initiated a lawsuit against the State of Missouri, alleging the state had caused and perpetuated a system of racial segregation in Kansas City's schools.
- The plaintiffs, eventually a class of KCMSD students, sought various desegregation remedies.
- The plaintiff class was represented by attorney Arthur Benson and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF).
- Over many years of litigation, Benson's firm dedicated 10,875 attorney hours and 8,108 paralegal and law clerk hours to the case.
- Similarly, the LDF's team dedicated 10,854 attorney hours and 15,517 paralegal and law clerk hours.
- During the litigation, the delay in payment caused significant financial hardship; Benson was forced to borrow over $600,000 to cover operating expenses and staff salaries.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kansas City Missouri School District and a class of students sued the State of Missouri in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging unlawful school segregation.
- After a lengthy trial, the District Court found the State of Missouri liable and ordered various desegregation remedies.
- The plaintiffs' attorneys successfully moved for an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- The District Court awarded fees that included an enhancement to compensate for the delay in payment and compensated paralegal and law clerk time at prevailing market rates.
- The State of Missouri, as appellant, appealed the fee award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's fee award in its entirety.
- The State of Missouri, as petitioner, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act (42 U.S.C. § 1988), may a court enhance an attorney's fee award against a State to compensate for delay in payment, and may it calculate fees for paralegals and law clerks based on market rates rather than their cost to the attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, a court may enhance an attorney's fee award against a State to compensate for delay in payment and may calculate non-lawyer fees based on market rates. The Court first reaffirmed its holding in Hutto v. Finney, establishing that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to awards of attorney's fees ancillary to prospective relief, as they are considered 'costs' of litigation, not retroactive damages. Therefore, adjusting the fee to account for a multi-year delay in payment is a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional immunity. The Court held that a 'reasonable attorney's fee' under § 1988 must be a 'fully compensatory fee,' and compensation received years after services are rendered is not equivalent to prompt payment; thus, an enhancement for delay, such as by using current market rates, is appropriate. Second, the Court held that a 'reasonable attorney's fee' encompasses the work product of the attorney, which includes the work of paralegals and law clerks. To determine the value of their work, courts should look to the prevailing market practice. If the local market bills for paralegal time separately at market rates, then § 1988 authorizes such compensation to ensure a fully compensatory fee and to encourage the cost-effective use of lower-cost paralegals over more expensive attorneys.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor
No, the Eleventh Amendment does not permit the enhancement of attorney's fees against a State to compensate for delay in payment. While agreeing with the majority's holding on market-rate compensation for paralegals, this opinion dissents on the delay enhancement. Citing Library of Congress v. Shaw, the opinion argues that compensation for delay is functionally identical to interest, which is a form of damages, not costs. Because the fee enhancement constitutes retroactive monetary relief (damages), it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless Congress has abrogated the state's immunity in 'unmistakable language.' The text of § 1988 provides no such clear statement of intent to abrogate immunity for interest or damages, and therefore the enhancement is unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the statute does not authorize market-rate fees for non-lawyers. This opinion agrees with Justice O'Connor that the Eleventh Amendment bars compensation for delay but dissents from the Court's holding on paralegal fees. The phrase 'a reasonable attorney's fee' in § 1988 should be interpreted to mean a fee for services rendered by a licensed attorney. The cost of paralegals and law clerks is office overhead, which is properly included in the attorney's own hourly billing rate. Allowing separate market-rate billing for non-lawyers is a 'drastic departure' from the traditional meaning of 'attorney's fees' and could result in double recovery. Expanding the statute's meaning based on local billing practices is a legislative function that the Court should not undertake.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the enforcement mechanism of civil rights statutes by ensuring that plaintiffs' attorneys can receive 'fully compensatory' fees. By shielding fee enhancements for delay from Eleventh Amendment challenges, the Court reduced the financial risk for attorneys undertaking long and complex litigation against state governments. The ruling on paralegal fees modernized the interpretation of fee-shifting statutes, aligning them with the economic realities of contemporary law practice. This encourages law firms to delegate tasks efficiently, potentially lowering the overall cost of civil rights litigation while ensuring the firm is compensated for all work contributing to the case.
Unlock the full brief for Missouri et al. v. Jenkins, by her friend, Agyei, et al.