11 Dupont Circle NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 822-6070
Fax: (202) 822-6068
The alliance occasionally files amicus briefs on behalf of member organizations, especially in cases dealing with awards of attorneys' fees. For example, in Blum v. Stenson (1984), the alliance submitted an amicus brief on behalf of its member organizations urging the Court not to adopt modifications in the construction of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1973. These included: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Center for Law in the Public Interest, the Center for National Policy Review, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumers' Union, the Education Law Center, the Employment Law Center, the Environmental Defense Fund, Equal Rights Advocates, the Food Research and Action Center, Harmon & Weiss, the Institute for Public Representation, the Juvenile Law Center, the Mental Health Law Project, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Women's Law Center, the Native American Rights Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, Public Advocates, Inc., the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, the Women's Law Project, and the Women's Legal Defense Fund. The alliance noted that its members "often pursue non-litigation strategies, such as legislative and administrative advocacy," which are not remunerated by attorneys' fees, and have been "a significant factor in enabling some public interest groups to undertake and maintain certain litigation."
More recently, the Alliance for Justice participated as amicus curiae in Pierce v. Underwood (1988), involving construction of the Equal Access to Justice Act. The alliance noted its interest there as twofold:
First, we depend on donated services of attorneys in the private bar to assist us in conducting litigation. In our experience, the potential for fee awards to prevailing parties in such litigation has increased the willingness of the private bar to participate in actions brought by or against the federal government. To the extent that fees and costs become unavailable even when the party receiving pro bono representation prevails, the availability of donated services will decrease.
Second, we also depend on a substantial degree on fee awards for income necessary to carry out, through our own staff, our programs of providing legal services to the victims of unjustified governmental action. Thus, the availability of fee awards is essential both to the continued provision of legal services and to the vindication of individual rights in the face of unjustified conduct by the United States government.
We are convinced that the judgment of the court below is correct. The legislative history of the Equal Access to Justice Act demonstrates that Congress intended that the statute be liberally interpreted so that fees will be awarded in all appropriate cases. Moreover, the same legislative history, as well as sound policy concerning the administration of justice, counsel that fee awards should not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. (Brief filed on October 7, 1987)
The alliance also serves as a judicial selection watchdog group. Its Judicial Selection Project, in fact, spearheaded the drive to defeat the Bork nomination.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Aron, N. (1989). Liberty and Justice for All: Public Interest Law in the 1980s and Beyond (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press).
Effron, E. (1985b). "Public Interest Law Grows Despite Obstacles," Chicago Daily Law Bulletin131:22, June.
Effron, E. (1985c). "Liberal Groups Eye Closer Study of Judicial Nominees," Chicago Daily Law Bulletin131:1, January 15.
