Evans
v. Jeff D.
475
Yeazell,
pp. 358-362
Facts: A class action was filed
against
Procedural
Posture: The
Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling, saying that “a
stipulated waiver of all attorney's fees obtained solely as a condition for
obtaining relief for the class should not be accepted by the court.” The state of
Issue: Do federal district courts
have the power to approve the waiver of attorney’s fees?
Rule: Rule 23(e) requires court
approval of settlements of class actions.
The Fees Act doesn’t prohibit all settlements conditioned on the waiver
of fees.
Analysis: The Court finds that the
district court did not go over the line in approving the fee waiver in the
context of a settlement favorable to the plaintiffs.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court reversed
the Court of Appeals and reinstated the ruling of the trial court that the
attorney’s fees could be waived.
Notes
and Questions
1.
a. So the Legal
Aid Society needs to think about other future potential clients, not just the
current ones.
b. What do you
mean no ethical dilemma? That’s assuming
that being a proper advocate has infinite value and cannot be exchanged for any
other value, like the solvency of a socially useful organization or making sure
that your own kids can eat. The reality
is that this dilemma will have an impact on the case. The Court shouldn’t stick its head in the
sand and pretend there is no dilemma, it should deal with the dilemma.
1. Why would the
clients want to refuse a settlement requiring a wavier of attorney’s fees? What do they care?
a. That seems
pretty selfish.
b. Do people
really obey these rules? If Idaho Legal
Aid is unwilling to take the case for really free, then it
shouldn’t. If the clients sign and