What does your broad ad hominem attack have to do with anything pertaining to enhancing legal fees? The first poster has a point that the standards for enhancing legal fees are very amorphous, and a doctor cannot have his fees enhanced. That their situation has problems doesn't mean ours doesn't.

This is a timely post because I'm currently drafting a memo regarding the fees the plaintiff is likely to demand in the case we're prepping for trial. This case was brought under New Jersey's version of the ADA, and there is prevailing case law in NJ that says the lawyer's fees can be enhanced (or reduced) for 12 different reasons. The fact remains that when there is a fee-shifting statute, the defendant is required to pay a certain amount of fees, but has no idea how much those fees will be, and all of the reasons for paying enhanced fees have nothing to do with the conduct of the defendant itself. How can that not tweak any reasonable person's sense of fairness?

In any event, this is going to be a huge decision, and based on previous decisions, I'm pretty sure we know where the court will come out.