Lawyers in D.C. Handgun Case Decline Further Mediation Over Fees

The lawyers who fought out the landmark Supreme Court case over D.C.'s handgun ban today declined any further mediation to resolve a dispute over the attorney fees demanded by the prevailing plaintiffs' attorneys.

Ever since the 2008 win in the high court, the plaintiffs' attorneys, including Alan Gura of Alexandria, Va.'s Gura & Possessky, have been fighting in Washington federal district court for attorneys fees, which the plaintiffs estimate at more than $3.5 million. The dispute was first referred to mediation in November 2008, according to court records.

The topic of mediation came up today at a status conference before Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Sullivan inquired whether he could “twist” the arms of the lawyers to return to mediation.

“Your honor, I would love to settle this,” Gura said. “But we need a partner to negotiate.” A lawyer for the District, Andrew Saindon of the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, did not respond in court to Gura’s remark. Gura also said the District has made a political decision not to pay him fees—a contention that lawyers for the city said is meritless.

Lawyers for the city filed for a protective order last month to prohibit Gura from seeking discovery on the District’s expenses in defending the handgun ban. Saindon said in court papers earlier this month that the city’s outside counsel—including attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Covington & Burling and O’Melveny & Myers—served pro bono. Moreover, he said, the private attorneys’ contracts with the District did not require them to provide billing records.

In a May 21 court filing, Gura responded that the city was raising the pro bono service for the first time. “These attorneys’ billing rates and records are relevant to the determination of the value of the legal work performed, whether that value was donated, borrowed, or paid for,” he said. The District, he said, has "a right to demand of its attorneys information about the value of their time, as well as records of what those attorneys are doing on its behalf.”

Sullivan today did not rule on the District’s request for a protective order. He asked the lawyers to file additional pleadings regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in April in Perdue v. Kenny A. In that case, the Court rejected a $4.5 million fee enhancement, but also said judges in rare and well-documented circumstances may award fee enhancements above the “lodestar” amount to lawyers in civil rights disputes.

Comments

[Ben]

Their suit wasn't to "get paid" Joe, the suit was to overturn the ban. They didn't file for attorneys fees until after the case had been decided, so attempting to portray Heller's cause as some protracted seven year battle against DC is disingenuous.

[rhinestone]

Why should DC taxpayers pay for Heller's legal fees?

[Fiftycal]

Gura needs to sue for triple damages. And file a report with the credit bureau that will affect DC's credit score. Oh, wait, their score is already ZERO. Never mind.

[McDC]

As a D.C. taxpayer, I'm with Mr. Gura. Instead of first admitting that its draconian and ineffective gun ban was unconstitutional and then negotiating a reasonable settlement with Heller, et al., the city chose frivolous and costly litigation.

Now, hoping to keep taxpayers in the dark as D.C.'s latest deficit-spending budget is finalized, city leaders have conspired with the private law firms to assert after the fact that their gun law defense was performed pro bono. The whole lot of them should be investigated by the FBI and prosecuted like Scooter Libby if they're not entirely forthcoming.

[Joe]

This is a perfect example of why people hate the American court system. Gura & Co. fought for 5 years to win their case, and now, almost 2 years after the landmark Heller ruling, they're still waiting to get paid.

I bet D.C. Councilman Marion Berry's crack dealer never waited 2 years to get paid.