The Price of Justice

The Price of Principle Is Punishment

In civil rights litigation, the nobler the cause, the harsher the punishment. Judges, drawn from the cloistered ranks of privilege, power, and political favor, take offense when lawyers stand up for the rights of ordinary Americans. Attorneys who challenge police abuse, prison brutality, racial discrimination, or political retaliation face scorched-earth tactics at trial and judicial disdain when they prevail. Even after a hard-won verdict, they are punished with slashed fees or denied payment altogether.

Civil rights attorneys are not ambulance-chasers. They do not seek to profit from human misery or chase windfalls. They are public-interest advocates taking on the hardest cases for clients who have nowhere else to turn. Yet judges treat them with contempt. They slash hourly rates, ignore months of labor, and trivialize the difficulty of the work. Some judges even claim that lawyers committed to a cause should expect no compensation at all. Real lawyers, they say, get paid upfront. In today’s judiciary, commitment is treated not as virtue, but as proof you deserve less.

The message from the bench is unmistakable: if you defend the individual against the government, you will pay the price. Judges cannot cloak themselves in the rhetoric of justice while stripping civil rights lawyers of the ability to continue their work. That hypocrisy must end.

The Legal Fee System Rewards Power, Not Justice

Judges have forgotten or ignored the purpose of fee-shifting statutes. Those statutes exist to ensure that civil rights enforcement does not depend on the wealth of the plaintiff or the charity of counsel. Congress understood that rights without remedies are meaningless, and remedies without lawyers are unattainable. Yet courts now treat fee awards to successful civil rights attorneys as handouts instead of statutory entitlements.

The result is a two-tiered system of justice. Large corporations and wealthy individuals can enforce their claims with armies of lawyers who bill their time by the fraction of an hour and are paid promptly—whatever they bill, without question. Individuals whose civil rights have been violated must find an attorney willing to beg for justice on their behalf and then hope their attorneys can survive the process. This imbalance mocks the ideal of “Equal justice under law.”

When Courts Refuse to Award Fees, They Undermine Justice

When a civil rights attorney wins a verdict but receives nothing, or nearly nothing, in fees, it sends a message louder than any judicial opinion: “These cases are not worth bringing.” Judges who slash fee requests punish the lawyers who make civil rights enforcement possible. They discourage future lawsuits, drive capable counsel out of the field, and dismantle the incentive structure Congress put in place. Fee-shifting statutes were a guarantee that ordinary Americans, those without wealth, power, or political clout, could still find justice in American courts. Judicial hostility to those statutes betrays that guarantee.

The record of fee decisions by judges throughout state and federal courts is appalling. Fee awards often depend on the whims or whimsy of individual judges. Most awards to successful attorneys in civil rights actions are based on a judge’s subjective notions of “excessive billing,” “limited success,” or their personal opinions about the “prevailing hourly rate” in the community. Judges second-guess every hour worked and every strategy chosen. They use hindsight to punish risk-taking and perseverance. In many cases, they ignore hundreds of hours of legal service. They treat the justice achieved by the attorney as an inconvenience that does not deserve to be compensated.

Judicial sabotage of fee-shifting statutes guts their purpose. A fee award is not a gratuity. It is part of the remedy. If courts undermine that remedy, they undermine the law itself.

Judicial Discretion Does Not Mean Judicial License

Fee awards in civil rights cases are not gratuities. They are not tips for lawyers who happened to win. They are statutory rights, deliberately established by Congress to ensure that justice is not reserved for the rich. Yet many judges treat these awards as discretionary, subject to their mood, their biases, or their disdain for the case itself. Discretion becomes a license to deny compensation and deliver the message: “Don’t bring cases like this.”

The result is a chilling effect on civil rights enforcement. Attorneys cannot afford to take these cases if success means financial ruin. Firms cannot retain staff or support clients when even success leads to a pittance in fees. Judicial hostility to fee-shifting undermines the entire legal framework Congress designed to protect civil rights.

The answer is to discipline judicial discretion. Judges must be held to clear, enforceable standards when evaluating fee petitions. They must explain their reasoning with rigor and respect, not disdain. And they must remember that their role is to apply the law, not to nullify it through arbitrary cuts in the fee requests of successful civil rights attorneys.

Bad Precedents Make Worse Practices

Once one judge slashes a fee request, others take note. What begins as a single decision becomes a trend. Soon, courts across the country cite each other to justify ever-decreasing compensation, regardless of the facts. The statutory right to fees is replaced by a patchwork of judicial bias and political ideology masquerading as settled law.

Judicial rulings that slash fees distort the law. They reward conformity, penalize vigorous advocacy, and turn the fee award process into a second trial engineered to discredit, devalue, and demoralize civil rights attorneys. Every hour billed is questioned and dissected. Every submission is scrutinized in an adversary context. Every success is diminished.

Congress did not intend for civil rights lawyers to beg for compensation. Courts must stop treating rulings that award fees to successful civil rights attorneys as ceilings rather than floors. Fee-shifting statutes exist to promote the enforcement of constitutional rights, not to bury them under layers of precedent turned against their purpose. When courts weaponize judicial reasoning to dismantle the laws they are sworn to uphold, they do more than err. They betray the Constitution.

Judicial Hostility Undermines Civil Rights Protection

Too many judges approach fee petitions in civil rights cases with suspicion, if not outright hostility. They comb through billing records line by line, assume exaggeration, question litigation strategy, and fault attorneys for working too hard on cases that challenged power and exposed wrongdoing. This reflexive skepticism betrays a deeper discomfort with the very purpose of fee-shifting statutes: to reward public-interest lawyering, not penalize it.

The message is unmistakable that even when civil rights attorneys win, they lose. They must defend not just their clients, but their own credibility, professional status, and their right to be paid for the legal services they perform. Courts question their hours, deny their value, and treat their victories as accidents unworthy of reward. Fee petitions become trials of their own, where success is punished and skill and competence are scorned. Judges who slash fees treat civil rights advocacy as a political irritant rather than a constitutional duty.

This hostility does more than shortchange lawyers. It sabotages the enforcement of laws meant to protect the public’s human rights. It warns future advocates to stay away and tells victims their rights are symbolic, not real. Courts were not created to stand in the way of justice. Judges were created to stand up for it.

Precedent Has Become Pretext

Courts justify slashing civil rights fee awards by citing precedent. But those precedents are products of the same judicial hostility that prompted the cuts in the first place. One judge’s skepticism becomes another’s justification. What begins as discretion becomes doctrine while the statutory right to fees is buried beneath layers of dismissive rulings.

Fee-shifting statutes were meant to empower citizens, not entitle judges to second-guess the value of public-interest lawyering. Nevertheless, many courts treat civil rights litigation as a nuisance and civil rights attorneys as opportunists. Their rulings are less about legal principle and more about expressing disdain. They elevate the essentially ministerial process of approving and awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to successful civil rights attorneys into displays of judicial despotism, making a public spectacle of judicial power divorced from justice.

The fee award case law does not merely punish successful civil rights attorneys, it reshapes the legal landscape. It teaches judges, lawyers, and litigants that public-interest work is worth less than representing large corporations and wealthy individuals. It creates a chilling effect that ripples through the justice system and corrupts what was once a noble profession. It tells the next generation of lawyers to stay away from civil rights litigation.

The Process Is the Punishment

Fee petitions in civil rights cases have become tools of humiliation. Courts demand exquisite detail, line-by-line billing entries, exact time increments, and justifications for every task, then use that detail as ammunition to slash the request. The very process meant to vindicate public-interest lawyering becomes an inquisition designed to shame the lawyer into retreat or concession.

Instead of recognizing the difficulty, risk, and societal value of civil rights litigation, courts treat fee petitions as presumptively inflated. Judges scrutinize billing records with a skepticism they never apply to corporate lawyers or commercial litigation. They assume bad faith, question every decision, and recast effort as excess.

This is not neutral adjudication. It is professional hazing masquerading as legal process. The message is clear: lawyers who challenge power will be punished. Courtroom victories are hollowed out at the fee petition stage and public interest litigation is demeaned.

Fee Request Litigation Is Designed to Deter

The ordeal of fee request litigation is not accidental. It is a feature of the current judicial approach to civil rights litigation on behalf of individual Americans. Courts know that by dragging attorneys through prolonged, hostile, and demeaning proceedings, they discourage future claims. Every objection, every demand for documentation, every insinuation of greed serves a broader institutional purpose: deterrence. Judges do not want to hear individual civil rights cases.

When lawyers know that success in court leads only to months or years of belittling scrutiny over their fees, many simply walk away. The rational response is to avoid civil rights work altogether. That is the real function of the modern fee-award process—not to compensate attorneys for vindicating the law, but to deter them from ever trying.

Institutional Incentives Favor Judicial Obstruction

The judicial system has no incentive to streamline or simplify fee litigation. Quite the opposite. The longer the process takes, the more discretion judges wield, and the less accountability they face. Courts are rewarded for delay, not efficiency. There is no penalty for dragging out proceedings or slashing fee awards. But there is professional risk in granting full compensation to lawyers who challenge powerful defendants or politically sensitive institutions.

Judicial obstruction of civil rights litigation is not necessarily malicious, but it is deeply structural. Every layer of review, every procedural hurdle, every demand for more documentation serves to consume the time, energy, and resolve of civil rights counsel. Judges know this. They know that prolonged fee disputes wear lawyers down. And that is the point. The process operates exactly as designed, to discourage civil rights litigation by making it as demoralizing and unrewarding as possible.

Oversight Has Failed

Judges are not accountable for how they wield the power to deny fees. Appellate courts almost never reverse reduced awards, no matter how arbitrary or vindictive. Judicial conduct commissions ignore systematic bias against civil rights attorneys. Bar associations say nothing. Law schools dismiss fee litigation as a technicality, not a frontline battle over access to justice. Judges can punish civil rights lawyers with impunity while the legal establishment looks away.

This absence of oversight is not a flaw in the system. It is the system. It reflects a deep and deliberate discomfort with courtroom advocacy on behalf of ordinary Americans. Judges who attack public-interest lawyers are celebrated for preserving institutional decorum, not condemned for abuse of discretion. The legal profession shields them from criticism. In protecting its own, the system fortifies the very structures that make reform impossible.

Change Will Not Come from Within

The judiciary will never reform itself. Judges cling to their unchecked discretion and wield it as a weapon against lawyers who challenge authority. They punish the very advocates fee-shifting statutes were meant to protect, those who fight for the powerless, the unpopular, and the politically impotent. The bar will not intervene. Too many lawyers are afraid of offending the bench, and too many bar associations exist to serve elite firms and entrenched interests, not the cause of justice. Law schools offer no help. Law professors dismiss fee litigation as trivial and ignore the human cost of judicial abuse.

Real reform will only come from outside the system. It will come from civil rights lawyers who refuse to be silenced, from grassroots advocates who demand better treatment from the courts, and from elected officials willing to confront judicial arrogance. Congress created the right to attorneys’ fees to ensure that civil rights could be enforced by ordinary people, regardless of wealth or influence. That legislative promise has been subverted by a judiciary more interested in preserving its own power than upholding the law. Judges have buried civil rights enforcement beneath layers of delay, obstruction, and professional punishment. Congress and state legislatures must confront the corruption, strip judges of the power to punish civil rights lawyers, and rewrite the rules to protect those who hold government accountable, no matter whom they challenge.

The Fight Is Not Over

The right to counsel in civil rights cases means nothing if the lawyers who make it real are punished for doing their job. The promise of attorneys’ fees is a cruel hoax when judges slash fee requests out of bias, contempt, or the reflexive urge to control. Fee-shifting statutes were enacted to ensure that justice is not reserved for the rich and politically well-connected. But those statutes have been gutted by judicial hostility, institutional cowardice, and the silent complicity of the organized bar.

Civil rights lawyers must stop accepting judicial abuse as the price of advocacy. Civil rights organizations must stop appeasing judges who retaliate against those who fight for the rights of individual Americans. Congress must reassert its authority over the judiciary it created. And the public must see what is at stake and why it matters to all Americans. The battle over fee awards is about whether the law protects everyone, or only those who can afford to buy justice.

The fight for civil rights is now a battle against judges who have grown used to abusing individual litigants with impunity. If the courts will not uphold the Constitution, then the Constitution must be defended against the courts. The age of deference is over. The era of confrontation has begun. Every lawyer, lawmaker, and citizen must now decide what side they are on—and with whom they will stand.

Creative Commons License: This webpage and its contents are released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt this material, provided you give appropriate credit and share any derivatives under the same license.