Private attorney general is an informal term usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit considered to be in the public interest or benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff. The term also refers more generally to any person who holds a general power of attorney from someone else, and also to any person who represents the public in any civil or criminal court proceeding. The person considered private attorney general is entitled to recover attorneys fees if he or she prevails. The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive for the people to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large. The U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that the people, who might have little or no money, could still serve as private attorneys general and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws. Congress primary purpose was to enable private attorneys general to protect the public interest by creating economic incentives for lawyers to represent them. The Courts assertion that the Fees Act was intended to do nothing more than give individual victims of civil rights violations another remedy is thus at odds with the whole thrust of the legislation. Congress determined that the public as a whole has an interest in the vindication of the rights conferred by the civil rights statutes over and above the value of a civil rights remedy to a particular plaintiff. Another example of the private attorney general provisions is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO allows average citizens (private attorneys general) to sue those organizations that commit mail and wire fraud as part of their criminal enterprise Senator Kennedy, who sponsored the amended version of the Fees Act that was actually passed, made the same point somewhat more succinctly: Long experience has demonstrated . . . that Government enforcement alone cannot accomplish [compliance with the civil rights laws]. Private enforcement of these laws by those most directly affected must continue to receive full congressional support. Fee shifting provides a mechanism which can give full effect to our civil rights laws, at no added cost to the Government. During the floor debates over passage of the Fees Act, Senator Hugh Scott reminded the Congress in terms that might well have been addressed to the Court today that we must bear in mind at all times that rights that cannot be enforced through the legal process are valueless; such a situation breeds cynicism about the basic fairness of our judicial system. [We] must be vigilant to insure that our legal rights are not hollow ones.Congress should encourage citizens to go to court in private suits to vindicate its policies and protect their rights. Video - vimeo/71587843 https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/475/475.US.717.84-1288.html
Posted on: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:04:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015