“…Michael Schmidlin successfully contended police used excessive force when they arrested him March 29, 1997, on suspicion of public drunkenness. Unless the city appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could pay $24,000 plus interest to Schmidlin and at least $300,000 in legal fees to his lawyer, Mark Martel. That figure might swell to more than $500,000, said Martel, who will spend the next month or so calculating the exact cost.” Martel says it’s the California city’s own fault for putting up too long a fight in the 11-year legal battle. (Jason Green, “Palo Alto loses longstanding legal fight in excessive force case”, San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 13)(via ABA Journal).
Palo Alto excessive force case
“…Michael Schmidlin successfully contended police used excessive force when they arrested him March 29, 1997, on suspicion of public drunkenness. Unless the city appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could pay $24,000 plus interest to Schmidlin and at least $300,000 in legal fees to his lawyer, Mark Martel. That figure might swell to more […]
5 Comments
That’s just a little over $5.25 per Palo Alto resident. It’s a small price to pay for the tax payers to know “justice.” Plato’s The Republic is also only $5.25 on Amazon. The way I see it, this guy is going to teach the citizens of Palo Alto a nice lesson in justice and save them shipping charges. He should probably try and split the difference.
The way I see it, this guy is going to teach the citizens of Palo Alto a nice lesson in justice and save them shipping charges. He should probably try and split the difference.
I don’t see sticking the citizens with a bill for something they had nothing to do with as any form of “justice.” That may be the way the system works, but how is it the fault of some unknown carpenter that the cops allegedly used “excessive force” on a drunk driver?
How is it “justice” that the lawyer gets more than the guy who was on the receiving end of the alleged use of excessive force?
I was being satirical.
Ooops.
Sorry!
This is par for the course in civil rights litigation. Happens all the time. The courts care not that the recovery was negligable compared to the fees, so long as the plaintiff got recovery for what the claims he was pressing.
The really crazy part of the law surrounding the civil rights fee statute is that the statute, which says that the prevailing party is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee has been interpretted by the Supreme Court to mean that only a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee. Guess they could see the word “plaintiff” in the statute where we ordinary mortals could not.