“Judge Rejects Enhanced Fee in Vendor Suit”

Legal Services NYC Executive Director Andy Scherer is quoted in a March 30th New York Law Journal story related to attorneys fees for non-profit agencies.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper of Manhattan nixed a
request from the Urban Justice Center, a group that represents those
unable to afford counsel, for a multiplier that would have
significantly increased its lodestar fee, which was based on hours
billed at a customary rate. 

[…] 

Relying on a 1983 Appellate Division, Second Department, ruling, Matter of Rahmey v. Blum,
95 AD2d 294, 303, Justice Cooper found that because the justice center
was "created and funded" to represent New York's most needy, it did not
need the incentive of an "enhanced multiplier" to take the case.

Justice Cooper, nonetheless, praised the "quality" of the center's
legal work and the "significance" of its victory, not only for street
vendors, but for "all those affected by New York City agency rulemaking
in general."

In Rahmey, the Second Department, had reversed a denial
of any legal fees to a legal services group because it was funded by
the government for the purpose of bringing lawsuits for persons like
the food stamp recipient whose case it had won.

In remanding the case for calculation of an award, however, the Second
Department wrote, an increase in fees to reflect "the uncertain risk of
winning a lawsuit" should not be a component of fees awarded to legal
services groups which are "created and funded" to represent the poor.

Disagree With Reasoning

Christopher Dunn, the associate legal director of the New York Civil
Liberties Union, said there is "no reason to treat public interest
groups differently [from private firms] when considering an award for
enhanced fees in a risky case." Mr. Dunn, a Law Journal columnist, was
not involved in the case.

Andrew Scherer, the executive director of Legal Services NYC, the
city's sole program receiving federal funds from the Legal Services
Corporation to represent the poor in civil cases, explained that
non-profit groups face repercussions similar to those experienced by
private firms if they are unsuccessful after taking on a difficult
case: "the squandering of precious and limited resources" and "a
negative effect" on their reputation.

Read the full New York Law Journal Article by clicking here (subscription required).