>From the AP [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Pledge-of- Allegiance.html?hp]:
"Newdow, a doctor and lawyer representing himself in the case, hopes to argue the case but he must get special permission from the court." If the AP can be trusted. . . Will Baude http://www.crescatsententia.org Quoting Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 > > > > > > > >
