In some circumstances, even a plaintiff who formally "prevails" under § 1988 should receive no attorney's fees at all. A plaintiff who seeks compensatory damages but receives no more than nominal damages is often such a prevailing party. As we have held, a nominal damages award does render a plaintiff a prevailing party by allowing him to vindicate his "absolute" right to procedural due process through enforcement of a judgment against the defendant. Carey, 435 U. S., at 266. In a civil rights suit for damages, however, the awarding of nominal damages also highlights the plaintiff's failure to prove actual, compensable injury. Id., at 254-264. Whatever the constitutional basis for substantive liability, damages awarded in a § 1983 action "must always be designed `to compensate injuries caused by the [constitutional] deprivation.' " Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S., at 309 (quoting Carey, supra, at 265) (emphasis and brackets in original). When a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, see Carey, supra, at 256-257, 264, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all. In an apparent failure to heed our admonition that fee awardsunder § 1988 were never intended to " `produce windfalls to attorneys,' " Riverside v. Rivera, supra, at 580 (plurality opinion) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976)), the District Court awarded $280,000 in attorney's fees without "consider[ing] the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the fee award." Hensley, supra, at 438.
Methinks Mr. Lane might be having a bad evening. Also, if Mr. Churchill didn't sign a contingent fee agreement, he might be wondering how far is $1 will go. (Or a jerk like Churchill might just be conjuring up a new lawsuit against his esteemed counsel).
Sorry typo in #62 - They are 42 USC 1983 cases.
The wise thing for the jury to do was to find this asshat was fired for his academic corruption and be done with it. Instead, the legal record now stands that he was illegally terminated in retaliation for protected speech. Since he thus lost his job, I assume it cost him some money. I hope he still gets zilched, but it's something to be concerned about.
His lawyer will get the dollar. Generally on contingency fee agreements, the plaintiff gets 2/3 of the net after payment of costs and fees.
It is also quite possible that since Mr. Churchill prevailed in the lawsuit, that he could be personally liable to his attorney for payment of thousands of dollars in costs.
Some contingency fee arrangements call for the plaintiff to be liable to their attorney for costs and filing fees in the event of a verdict for the plaintiff (regardless of the amount) with a waiver of those fees in the event of a defense verdict.
A quick look at cases decided since indicates the courts have since been busily finding ways to open that door wider and wider, especially in so-called "mixed motives" employment termination cases. See GUDENKAUF v. STAUFFER COMMUNICATIONS, INC, 158 P.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 1998).
Also bear in mind this was tried in state court and any appeals will end up in the hyper-liberal, Democrat dominated Colorado Supreme Court.