* Cook County Record…
A pair of longtime government reform advocates are pushing back against an attempt by Gov. JB Pritzker and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul to force them to pay the state $1.5 million, alleging they are being punished for opposing Pritzker’s bid to end decades of federal court oversight of corrupt state government hiring practices.
On Dec. 1, attorneys Michael Shakman and Paul Lurie filed a motion in Chicago federal court, opposing Pritzker’s efforts to force them to repay fees the court awarded them from the state as Pritzker argued in court that continued federal oversight of state hiring practices was no longer warranted.
“Granting the Governor’s request … would unjustly punish two civil rights champions who achieved massive reforms,” Shakman and Lurie wrote.
“It would set a dangerous precedent chilling civil rights plaintiffs from seeking appointment of masters to bring governmental bodies into compliance with the requirements of the Constitution.” […]
They noted Pritzker’s fee demand is essentially an ambush, as neither Pritzker nor Raoul gave any indication in the past two years of their intention to demand such a fee award from their opponents.
Shakman and Lurie said they reasonably opposed Pritzker’s attempt to vacate the decree, as they only backed the position of the special master, using information from her reports.
Shakman lost his appeal in August.
* From the state’s filing…
(U)nder black letter law and binding Seventh Circuit precedent, Plaintiffs no longer are prevailing parties with respect to the competing termination and expansion motions, and must shoulder their own fees for opposing the State’s termination motion and requesting expansion of the special master’s duties.
Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 requires the court to allocate payment for a special master’s services based on the “extent to which any party is more responsible than other parties for the reference to a master,” and allows reassessment of the allocation of special master payments between the parties “to reflect a decision on the merits.” The costs of the special master’s expanded duties and monitoring after Rule 60(b) was satisfied should be borne by Plaintiffs who sought the now-reversed order expanding her responsibilities over the State’s objection. In the wake of the Seventh Circuit’s repudiation of Plaintiffs’ arguments, there is no reason in law or equity that the State as opposed to the Plaintiffs should bear the cost of Plaintiffs advancing them and continuing special master monitoring and litigation past when it should have ended.
Thoughts?
- Anon 9:42 - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 9:42 am:
Thoughts? Don’t send nobody nobody sent.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 9:44 am:
The gravy train is over, you lost, the taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for your desperate attempt to keep it on the tracks. Time to sit back and reflect on all the money you made and go away.
- Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 9:46 am:
I think its rich that Shakman is complaining that he is being punished when he and the lawyers that worked in this cottage industry for years bilked millions of dollars from the taxpayers. His claim to be a “civil rights champion” is laughable. If he was truly concerned with civil rights, there a number of other issues he could have taken on to pursue justice for groups that have been historically marginalized or discriminated against.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 9:54 am:
why not? this happens all the time with lawsuits. somebody total up the amount he’s made. and start looking at other justice seekers who file and file and file.
- ;) - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 9:55 am:
Shakman, always was a crybaby, always will be.
- DougChicago - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 9:57 am:
Make him pay.
And the special master should have to refund her fees.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 9:59 am:
Make him pay…
“Live by…” the court ruling… pay what’s owed.
Enough is enough with this guy.
- Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:00 am:
Shakman should have considered this when he was on his mission to save the world. Pay up bubba.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:00 am:
Illinois where it is patronage hiring versus outdated sweetheart deal oversight officials.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:01 am:
Them’s the rules. You waste people’s (in this case, the State’s) time, money, and resources, and you pay. Special masters aren’t free.
- DuPage - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:14 am:
Things are tough all over.
- Banish Misfortune - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:16 am:
Skakman has grifted off this for literally two generations. Pay up.
- Louis G Atsaves - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:33 am:
Major chill to future litigation against governments by reformers.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:33 am:
This makes my day. Pay up and get off the gravy train. This has been going on way too long. And Merry Christmas
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:35 am:
===Major chill to future litigation against governments by reformers.===
Huh?
No one forced Shackman to appeal.
Further, it ran its course, do you feel the courts got it wrong that reform measures are met… Counselor?
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:39 am:
==Major chill to future litigation==
lol. They grifted the state for years. They were finally told to go fly a kite. I know you lawyers like to bilk whatever you can out of your clients. The state has finally said enough.
- Paddyrollingstone - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 10:41 am:
“Civil Rights Champion?” There is now coffee all over my computer. He should pay up and go away.
- Juror #1 - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 11:00 am:
As someone who worked for a government agency that successfully went through the Shakman process, I can say there were lots and lots of lawyers cashing checks.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 11:00 am:
=Major chill to future litigation against governments by reformers.=
IIRC, this law was passed (and signed) during a gop governor’s admin. If you don’t like it, try to get it changed.
With the litigiousness of the gop these days, I would think you would step up.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 11:08 am:
==Major chill to future litigation against governments by reformers.==
No, this is nothing new. The possibility of attorney’s fees being charged to the losing party is well understood, to say nothing of all the other costs of complicated litigation.
- Flying Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 11:37 am:
“Major chill to future litigation”
Spoken like a true shyster.
When I win you can’t ring the Liberty Bell hard enough, when I lose, it’s a threat to Mom, apple pie, and the good ole’ US of A.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 11:41 am:
It’s not like the State is asking Shakman to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs it expended. It’s asking for what he was awarded as a prevailing party to be returned as the judgment was reversed and thus he was never really the prevailing party because the district court erred. Perhaps the money should have been placed in escrow pending appeal.
- Bucknell - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 11:59 am:
Good for the administration. Do Noelle Brennan next. She’s just as much of a grifter as Shakman.
- low level - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 12:20 pm:
50 years later he’s still at it…
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 1:58 pm:
===It’s not like the State is asking Shakman to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs it expended. It’s asking for what he was awarded as a prevailing party to be returned as the judgment was reversed and thus he was never really the prevailing party because the district court erred. Perhaps the money should have been placed in escrow pending appeal.===
I’m not even sure it is that. It sounds like the $1.5 million is Shakman’s fees in opposing the district court’s order of compliance and the costs of the special master from the order of compliance. He should have to incur those costs I believe. It sounds like he spent the money the district court awarded him even though there was an appeal pending, which he should have never done.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:31 pm:
The Cook County Record, like all Timpone “papers” has an agenda so it’s not surprising that the reporting is unclear.
- TimO - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 2:52 pm:
Civil rights champions. Lol. They hired all of their family and friends and made millions off of taxpayers claiming to be the nepotism police.
- Karen - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:26 pm:
==Civil rights champions==
Maybe, 30 years ago. Amazing how even civil rights litigation in Chicago can become a bit of a racket over time. Perhaps “reform” is needed so small groups of individuals with sway in the media can’t monopolize legal fees and other dollars ultimately paid by taxpayers in order to keep their gig alive.
- Anon E Moose - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 3:48 pm:
Having met and worked with Mr. Shakman, he is a huge phony even by lawyer standards. His cash cow is over.
- Not hired for politics - Tuesday, Dec 6, 22 @ 7:56 pm:
How much money did Shakman make over the years in legal fees from this case? Time to reimburse the tax payers for once