There is some truth to this. The courts are becoming hesitant to make the massive attorneys fees awards that were more commonplace in the past (1,000 damages and 200,000 in fees).
But, generally speaking, everyone is still on board for realizing that at the end of the day the attorneys fees award will probably be the biggest part of the award.
The fact is, as soon as judges stop giving out those attorneys fees awards, you’re going to stop having attorneys pursuing these civil rights cases. That’s the bottom line.
As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not.
"As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not."
For "minor" violations, they are not a priority at all. At least that's my experience and what I was told by that lawyer as well. If nobody in the system will enforce or defend your rights, then do you really even have those rights?
> If nobody in the system will enforce or defend your rights, then do you really even have those rights?
Nobody is a stretch. They can be enforced, just at great expense. So some people can defend those rights; others can’t.
We can’t extend this to the latter not having the rights because people intervene on behalf of others’ legal cases all the time, there are non-profits set up to do this (e.g. the ACLU and EFF) and some wealthy retired lawyers’ pass times.
The police don't, the DA doesn't, the judges don't - they are the main actors in the system. The civil rights attorneys and ACLU only take on the biggest issues due to constrained resources. Same with the DOJ Civil rights division.
Supposedly their job is to seek justice. Trampling people right, even if civil offenses, is something they aren't supposed to do. In fact it's their job to not violate those rights and take steps to mitigate their impact if they do occur. Violating those rights can undermine any criminal case they're working on.
Are you an attorney with experience with color of law violations, or just a citizen with an idea of what "should be correct" in a court of law? The American justice system is extremely convoluted. It's already been explicitly explained to you that "Most civil rights violations aren’t criminal offences. It literally isn’t the police or DA’s job". If you think there is a chance of changing this through "color of law" violations, I highly encourage you to seek counsel and pursue it - it would be a massive win! But, any lawyer worth their salt would tell you that it would be an impossible case and that you have a massive misunderstanding of how the justice system works.
You're completely misunderstanding the conversation here.
Did you see the quote about "legally, not at all"? This is easily identified as false. There are criminal charges in at least 4% of civil rights cases.
On top of that, we aren't just talking about charging some. We're talking about the idea that protection of civil rights is part of the job for police and prosecutors. This is also easy to prove. Police are required to Miranda-ize before interrogation, the agency they work for is required to investigate IAD complaints without being hostile to the complainant, etc. Prosecutors are required to maintain Guiglio lists, follow Brady for exculpatory evidence, etc. These are clearly defined examples of where the actors are in fact legally required to take steps to protect one's civil rights.
Do they sometimes violate these? Sure. The point is that it is in fact their job to ensure they are not violating people's civil rights. The reason they get away with it is that there's no real oversight, and even the civil cases are overseen by judges who are also part of the system and inevitably have biases to support the other members of that system.
True, but US legal fees are quite literally off the scale compared to the rest of the world. There isn't a country where lawyers siphon off so much, individually and collectively.
Yes I do. I've had some lawsuits in the USA, some in Europe and the cost of the US lawsuits absolutely dwarfed the ones in Europe.
It's not that $500/hour isn't 'insane' (it actually is, but that goes for the profession as a whole), it's how much time ends up being billed for a case and US lawyers really are experts at running out the clock, and working the system to the point where the legal fees themselves become a weapon in the case (see the excellent examples in this thread illustrating that).
Oh, and to add to this: I also had the distinct feeling that in the US I was often billed at 'partner' rates when the work done was at 'paralegal' level and I always wondered what would happen if you were to audit a large legal office to see if there was more partner time billed than there was partner time to begin with.
You almost certainly pay far more than 68 an hour for a doctor! (How long are you actually with the doctor?). Plumbers and mechanics are paid at a significantly lower rate than doctors and lawyers!
I have no idea? Brain fart. doctors also get paid by the procedure, so charge less for simple office visits (it’s complicated because of how medical billing works)
I don't know. I'm an expert (at some things, anyway), and I make $68 an hour. Maybe an attorney isn't billing 100% of the time, but if they billed six hours a week they'd make more than I do. That feels like a lot of money.
I assume that's your wage from an employer, and that's a totally different number. If that's your freelance fee, you are seriously being underpaid. After paying taxes, fees, insurance (both personal and business), anything less than $200/hour for skilled labor (not even expert professional) is a steal.
That's a good point; I'm not a contractor. I doubt my total compensation comes anywhere close to $200 an hour, though. When I was briefly a contractor last year I believe the total amount paid from the contractee to the contracting firm was closer to $150 an hour.
I think my pay is normal for my title ("ML engineer"), location (Cincinnati), and experience (master's, 10 years in the workforce). Though I wouldn't turn down a substantial pay raise ...
No, your total comp is probably no near 200, but what if your company was farming your work out? How much would they charge the client for your time? When my small company brings in consultants, it's usually at $100-150 per hour. $200 would be a tough sell, but it's not outside the realm of possiblitiy. $500 is a lot, but but lawyers usually produce results, and as described here, they don't get paid unless you do, so they have to make up that money somewhere.
What region are you located in (approximately)? I have some intuitive idea that compensation differs according to location, but I haven't done any in-depth study into it.
I was a contractor from 2013-2018, though at that point I was more a generalist than I am now. I don't know what USAF paid my company for me but my take-home maxed at $29 an hour, so $98 would have been more than sufficient. With my paltry raise this year compared to inflation I'll be back to my old pay in real terms before you know it.
The goal is also to create an incentive for the company to behave appropriately (legally) in the future. A few low-cost losses is not going to do that.
The goal is social justice, not just individual justice.
High cost losses won't necessarily do that either.
The fallacy is that these transactions have to be financial.
They don't. Any number of other remedies - from jail time downwards - would provide a stronger deterrent.
Without strong deterrents and the threat of even more expensive class action - possibly leading to personal ruin - individual losses can be written off as a cost of doing business.
Generally the sanctions for bad behaviour are far too light, and strongly biased towards business owners over customers/victims.
The Sackler/Purdue story is a perfect example. Inconceivable levels of harm were caused - far more harm than a high profile terrorist attack. But the Sackler family is still worth billions. And no one is going to jail.
The goal is to produce a relatively low-cost way to resolve reasonable disputes while eliminating opportunities for fraud and bad actors.
A formal written complaint prior to filing for abitration might have been equally effective. Incentivizing escalation simply drives up the costs of resolving disputes.
But, generally speaking, everyone is still on board for realizing that at the end of the day the attorneys fees award will probably be the biggest part of the award.
The fact is, as soon as judges stop giving out those attorneys fees awards, you’re going to stop having attorneys pursuing these civil rights cases. That’s the bottom line.
As a legal system, and as a society, we have to ask ourselves whether these civil rights violations are a priority or concern or not.