Kimberley Hoff 23 Sept 2012 PAR 115 Intro to Law IRAC Brief Case: Citation: Missouri v.

Jenkins 491 US 274 (1989) Supreme Court of the United States

Facts In 1977 the Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD( and its board began a suit against the State of Missouri and other defendants alleging acts amounting to a system of racial segregation in the Kansas City metropolitan schools. After a 1983-4 trial, the District Court found the State and KCMSD liable and ordered various remedies to be paid for by them. The plaintiff class was represented by Arthur Benson and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who requested compensation of attorneys fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act of 19761. Both had contributed thousands of attorney hours to the case, as well as thousands of paralegal hours. The court awarded fees for the paralegal work based on Kansas City market rates, and used the current rather than the historic rate to compensate for the delay in payment, the same standard used for attorneys fees. Missouri claimed that the District Court erred in compensating paralegals at the market rates for their services rather than at their cost to the attorney, alleging that this produces a windfall for the attorney. Issue Does the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act1 authorize calculating paralegal fees at the current market rate rather than at the historic rate or at the cost to the attorney? Rule In cases that seek to enforce federal civil rights codes, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorneys fee as part of the costs1. Analysis A reasonable fee must be understood as a reasonable fee for the work product of an attorney, not only work performed personally by members of the bar. The open market, rather than pure cost, is consistently referenced as the guide to what is currently reasonable, even for nonprofit legal aid organizations2. Congress intent was to provide a fully compensatory fee for civil rights work. There is a separate and higher prevailing market rate for attorneys who do not follow the common custom of billling paralegal hours separately and at market rate than for those who do follow the custom. Permitting separate market billing of paralegals where applicable encourages the use of lower-cost paraprofessionals, reducing the cost of civil rights litigation. Which rate to follow should be a matter of what the prevailing custom is in the local market, and in Missouri separate market rate billing prevails. Conclusion Civil rights litigation paralegal fees may be compensated at current market rates where the prevailing customis for separate billing from attorneys fees. Court of Appeals decision affirmed.
1 2

42 USC 1988. Blum v. Stenson, 465 US 886 (1984).