What the heck is that crap? I sure as heck don't want the judge to start making evaluations on what my LAWYER should be making. The lawyer is under contract, the terms quite plain. I don't care if he channels Clarence Darrow or Gomer Pyle so long as I get my results.

The guy's (or gal's for you feminists) a lawyer, let him worry about how poorly his contract rewarded him. If he's got a beef, let him (or her) haggle it out with me afterwards - but until then the contract stands. The taxpayers shouldn't suffer just because the judge is feeling particularly magnanimous or is in bed with the guy.

To put it very simply, these are cases that are ostensibly in the public's interest but would otherwise not pay the attorneys anything. What kind of fees do you think these attorneys could have gotten paid from a normal retainer? A class action on behalf of abused foster kids?

Isn't that what a public defender and DA prosecuter does? They make a living just fine and I still see no need for the judge to pile on the cash.

Public defenders and DA's are employees of the state, who get paid salaries regardless of whether they win or lose. This case involves private lawyers who take certain kinds of cases (e.g.,civil rights cases) on behalf of clients who typically can't afford to pay them by the hour. Congress has passed laws saying that the lawyers can recover fees from the government,in these cases, but only if they win. This allows the lawyers to take cases on behalf of clients who otherwise couldn't pay. It also gives them an incentive to take only cases that likely have some merit, since they don't want to sink time and money into cases where they are likely to lose and get nothing.

If you don't like this system, take it up with Congress. They passed the laws. The judges are only implementing them.

I definitely will.

"Isn't that what a public defender and DA prosecuter does? They make a living just fine and I still see no need for the judge to pile on the cash." This is either a civil suit or a private attorney general action. Certain statutes allow private actors to pursue lawsuits for civil rights violations. There are barely enough resources to pay DAs and public defenders just for the mundane criminal cases; it's pretty unlikely that they will expend thousands of man hours to investigate and prosecute for these types of suits. So the gov't incentivizes private attorneys to take on these cases. I know this stuff makes you angry, but has it occurred to you that your objections stem from ignorance?

Yes it has, has it occured to you that your viewpoint stems from your own prejudices? Since you're interested in playing tit-for-tat I thought I'd toss that out.

I still don't see why a judge should award extra money for a civil case either. Nothing you've said has demonstrated a need so far as I'm concerned and fully intend on taking this up with my representatives - as the other poster suggested. And if a judge in my district does something of this nature I will be certain to make sure everyone knows about it so they can join me in ousting that judge.

So yes, it does make me angry when public officials spend my tax money in a wholly arbitrary manner for the benefit of a single individual.

You can't "oust" a federal judge. They're appointed for life.

"Yes it has, has it occured to you that your viewpoint stems from your own prejudices?" What prejudices are you talking about? I look at the situation and try to understand the rationale behind the law. I didn't say it was good or bad, simply that there are stated reasons for the law. It's not my fault that you refuse to educate yourself and instead blindly lash out. "Nothing you've said has demonstrated a need so far as I'm concerned and fully intend on taking this up with my representatives" How can I demonstrate the need to you? You don't know the reasons behind the law, you don't know the function of DAs, you don't know why there are private attorney general lawsuits. Basically, you're wading into something you're completely ignorant about, but you're angry. Great.

Yeah you're right about that aren't you.

Just to be clear, are Federal judges the only ones who can use this option? I did not think so.