I had heard he was a lawyer; does anyone know for sure? Paul Finkelman Quoting "Howard M. Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 > > > >
