I do not believe that Newdow is a lawyer -- part of why the ACLU and other organizations tried so hard to get him not to argue himself in the 9th Circuit.
The result would not be different if he were not a lawyer--in fact it becomes easier. The idea of s. 1988 is to enable plaintiffs to attract competent counsel--the private attorney general model--by providing incentives to lawyers to take on cases such as this, that have no $ value. If the plaintiff is going to represent himself, he does not need that incentive to attract competen counsel. Howard Wasserman FIU College of Law ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Maule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Attorney's fees in pledge of allegiance case > Is it that the litigant is a lawyer or simply that there are no > out-of-pocket attorney fees to be reimbursed? In other words, the > statute doesn't cover the value of the litigant's time, just the value > of actual expended dollars? (Same thing with the tax case attorney fee > recovery statute (26 USC sec 7430) (see Sorrentino v US 199 F Supp 1068, > and cases cited therein), and my guess is that all such statutes, state > and federal, end up being limited to reimbursement of actual outlays > barring specific legislation saying otherwise). > > I assume Newdow is a lawyer? If he weren't, would the result be > different? > > Jim Maule > Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law > Villanova PA 19085 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule > President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) > (www.taxjem.com) > Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) > Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) > Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/15/2003 1:41:09 PM >>> > Under Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991), a pro se litigant who is > also a > lawyer cannot be awarded fees under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988, which is, I > assume, the fee-shifting statute most likely to apply to this case. > > Pam Karlan > > At 01:09 PM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Since Mark Newdow is apparently representing himself, would he be > entitled > >to attorneys' fees if he prevails in the pledge of allegiance case? > If so, > >approximately how much would they be (four figures, five figures, or > six > >figures)? > > Pamela S. Karlan > Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law > Stanford Law School > 559 Nathan Abbott Way > Stanford, CA 94305-8610 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 650.725.4851 >
