• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Suit Charges D.C. Police Executed Search Warrant at Wrong Apartment | Main | D.C. Circuit Revives Challenge to Online Tobacco Sale Restrictions »

February 18, 2011



Apparently your clients didn't contribute sufficiently to the Republicans campaign coffers and they'll be suffering the fallout from the Republicans' dissatisfaction with losing court cases to environmental groups.


PERFECT TIMING. I'm about to sign a six-figure EAJA settlement with the Government for my client, after the Government put us through 10 years of hell to get back millions in customs duty refunds + interest that the Government knew was due and owing. The Government used us as a "lab rat" to test two new theories on curtailing importers' remedies. Twice the trial court bought the Government's line & threw out the case & twice we won reversals on appeal. After the Government conceded the merits, they persuadeed the trial court to deny us an EAJA award -- we got that reversed as well. Now the Government wants to settle with us (for less than half of the actual lawyer fees & expenses) -- but this impending funding freeze may persuade them to fight on!? What do they have to lose? QUERY: The Government has the funds to litigate numerous unjustified cases (and the vast majority of EAJA awards are for social security recipients unjustifiably denied their benefits) -- but doesn't have the funds to partially (and I mean partially) reimburse the victims of these cases??

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad