... and Justice for All

“This is a business court. Now it’s the era of the corporation and the interests of business.” -- The Supreme Court That We Have

The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has become an aggressive advocate for and defender of big business and corporate interests reports Adam Liptak in the New York Times, "The Roberts Court Comes of Age."  This should give you the picture:

The Citizens United decision contained not a trace of minimalism, and it showed great solicitude to the interests of corporations.

“They’re fearless,” Lisa S. Blatt, who served in the solicitor general’s office for 13 years before joining Arnold & Porter last year, said of the justices in the majority. “This is a business court. Now it’s the era of the corporation and the interests of business.”

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Tort Reform Shortcomings Shown by BP Gulf Oil Rig Disaster

The shortcomings of tort reform are illustrated by the ever-growing disaster in the Gulf caused by the BP oil rig disaster argues attorney Anthony J. Russo Jr. in an essay, "Do Right By Oil Rig Workers' Families," appearing in the Florida Sun-Sentinel.  Those corporations responsible for this monumental disaster may well avoid full accountability and responsibility through the shelter of tort reform Russo argues.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Supreme Court Increasingly Hostile To Individual's Claims

"One of the overlooked themes to have emerged on the Roberts Court is an apparent hostility toward the basic rights of individuals to pursue their claims in federal court," argues Columbia Law School professor Jamal Greene in an essay, "Access Denied," in the National Law Journal. The Supreme Court is literally and figuratively intent on closing the federal courthouse doors to individuals.   

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Only "Some Degree of Success" Necessary for Award of Attorney's Fees Under ERISA, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court has ruled in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, No 09-448 (May 24, 2010), that only "some degree of success" is necessary for an award of attorney's fees under ERISA on a disability insurance benefits claim.

ERISA, at 29 U.S.C. sec. 1132(g)(1), provides, in pertinent part, that "the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of action to either party."  Given the absence of any statutory reference to a "prevailing party," the Court quickly and easily held that a "fee claimant need not be a 'prevailing party' to be eligible for an attorney's fees award" under sec. 1132(g)(1). 

A fee claimant, the Court held, "must show 'some degree of success on the merits' before a court may award attorney's fees under" sec. 1132(g)(1).  This threshold is satisfied "if the court can fairly call the outcome of the litigation some success on the merits without conducting a lengthy inquiry into the question whether a particular party's success was substantial or occurred on a central issue." 

The petitioner, Hardt, met this threshold because she had successfully persuaded the district court that she had not been allowed a proper administrative review of her claim, which when remanded to the plan administrator resulted in the insurance company agreeing that she was entitled to benefits.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com