In an adversarial litigation system, the concept of both sides winning is an oxymoron. But, that is what seems to have happened, according to claims made by attorneys on both sides of a case decided on 22 April, Wednesday, by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am sure you would be interested to read on for the subject matter involved the validity of enhanced attorney fees.

The U.S. Supreme Court, while rejecting a federal district court's $4.5 million enhancement of attorney fees and sending the issue down to the federal district court to be argued again, also upheld that courts could enhance attorney fees under ''rare circumstances.''

In a ruling that can be a major performance booster, the Supreme Court held that a lawyer's superior performance during the course of litigation can be considered as a factor for enhancing attorney fees by the court when there is ''specific evidence'' in favor of the enhancement.

While some critics feel that, the ruling would make it more difficult for lawyers to receive enhanced fees, unless there were extraordinary circumstances with specific evidence to justify the decision, others differ. Many are gladdened by the fact that, first, the ruling does uphold the concept of attorney fees enhancement, and next, it recognizes superior performance as an adequate ground.



The need to support with specific evidence any decision for enhancing attorney fees, increases fair play, or rather reduces chances of unfairness. By laying down restrictions, the ruling protects parties from unreasonable costs, and by supporting superior performance as a ground for enhancing attorney fees it protects hard-working lawyers against unfair returns. For lawyers fighting civil rights cases without fees, this ruling holds out the hope of fair returns against superior performance. For the general populace, this means greater support for protection of their civil rights, because incentives for their lawyers just became official.

Attorneys representing the State of Georgia, which is the defendant in the original suit, felt rejection of the sum of enhanced fees was a win for the State and the public. On the other hand, lawyers representing the plaintiff felt it was a win for them as the matter would be re-argued (more fees) and the Supreme Court had upheld the principle of enhancement of attorney fees.

Now that is what I call a win-win judgment with both parties happy in specific and both lawyers and clients gaining class benefits in general.