| 
                
                
                
                 
                Michigan Appeals Court Finds 
                Lawyer is Owed Open Meetings FeesGongwer News Service, July 14, 2006
 For more articles like this 
                visit 
                https://www.bridges4kids.org.
 
                Attorneys who represent themselves in successful Open Meetings 
                Act cases are entitled to an award of attorney fees from public 
                bodies, a divided Court of Appeals has ruled. But the dissent in 
                the 2-1 decision said the law was intended to only provide for 
                compensation of costs actually incurred, which is lacking in 
                cases where attorneys pursue documents on their own behalf.
 
 In the first impression case interpreting the law (Omdahl v. 
                West Iron County Board of Education, COA docket No. 262532), the 
                majority said it was not persuaded by fears expressed in an 
                opinion dealing with the Freedom of Information Act that 
                allowing attorneys to recover fees for their own cases would 
                create a cottage industry for attorneys to generate fees when no 
                controversy exists.
 
 "It must be remembered that the evil addressed by these statutes 
                is secrecy in government, not the earning of a fee by an 
                attorney. Creation of such a "cottage industry" is actually more 
                in keeping with the purpose of the statute than to prohibit it. 
                Governmental units can easily avoid the payment of such fees 
                merely by complying with the FOIA and OMA statutes, which is 
                presumably the desired effect of those statutes," Judge David 
                Sawyer wrote in an opinion signed by Judge Alton Davis.
 
 They also said the term "actual attorney fee" was not so 
                narrowly written to exclude work that is not physically billed. 
                "The actual attorney fee is the actual time invested by the 
                attorney in the case multiplied by his billing rate," the 
                majority said.
 
 But Judge Kirsten Kelly said the clear language of the law does 
                not provide for recovery of time or effort, but only recognizes 
                fees actually incurred.
 
 "While I agree with the majority's assertion that 'actual 
                attorney fee' does not necessarily or exclusively mean 'an 
                actual, physical bill from a law firm or the actual payment of a 
                fee by a client to his attorney,' I suggest that determining 
                whether 'actual attorney fees' were incurred would include a 
                consideration of both of these things, and may, in some 
                circumstances, include more," she said.
 
                     
                
                back to the top     ~    
                back to Breaking News     
                ~     back to 
                What's New 
                  |