I hate to seem contrary but I'm missing the "perfection" in Clement's closing.

"If you accept the petitioner's position that the lodestar is a ceiling, and not subject to adjustment then what you are telling lawyers is that the maximum amount they can make in a civil rights case is the minimum amount they can make in a different case."

I fail to see how that follows. What different case is he talking about? In a different civil rights case, the attorney can apply for a higher lodestar, and justify it by his success in the first case which shows an increase in his expertise.

"You are also telling them something else, which is that there are multiple ways for district courts to cut down on the lodestar amount, either because you spent too much time on this or we didn't like your travel expenditures. And so there are multiple ways for those hours to be cut down." Why would any lawyer take on a civil rights case if the meter only runs backward?"

This is actually fairly common in the legal world. The client gets a bill and complains about certain items that are then deleted from the bill. Contra to Justice Sotomayer's statement bonuses to law firms are much less frequent. And a bonus of 75% which is what is involved here is something I've never seen. If attorneys in private practice can cope, why can't civil rights lawyers?

"Why would any lawyer take on a civil rights case if the meter only runs backward?"

What evidence shows that there is a shortage of civil rights lawyers? In this tough economy, I find it hard to believe that any plausible, substantial civil rights case would be lack an advocate.