In Pro Per Restrictions Do Not Apply to Representation by One’s Spouse.
A plaintiff prevailed on a civil rights claim and then sought recovery for work done by her attorney spouse and a co-counsel non-spouse. The district judge awarded plaintiff fees charged by co-counsel in the amount of $13,770 (out of a requested $21,420) under the federal civil rights fee-shifting statute, but denied entirely the request to reimburse any part of her spouse’s work (requested fees of $124,510).
The Ninth Circuit, in Rickley v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. 09-56498 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011; amended Oct. 4, 2011) (for publication), reversed.
Nothing in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (the civil rights fee-shifting statute) or IDEA (a statute having an analogous fee shifting provision in the educationally disabled area) imposes a general rule requiring counsel to be independent and emotionally detached. Plaintiff did not represent herself, such that her spouse’s representation did not trigger the in pro per bans applicable to both plaintiffs and defendants in the civil rights area. To further support the result, the Ninth Circuit cited two federal district court decisions refusing to apply the in pro per restrictions to attorney spouses.