October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1717
Does the Equal Access to Justice Act allow paralegal fees at market rates?
Richlin Security seeks market-rate paralegal fees. The government argues a statutory cap limits these costs.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Wolfman stated the Federal Circuit awarded attorney fees to Richlin.
He noted the court denied market-rate paralegal fees.
He argued statutory attorney fees exclude paralegal work.
Mr. Yang stated the Act authorizes two distinct expense categories.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Equal Access to Justice Act lets private parties recover legal costs from the government. The dispute centers on whether paralegal work counts as attorney fees. Richlin argues paralegal fees are separate expenses. The government claims a statutory cap limits all non-attorney costs.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Richlin wants market-rate paralegal fees as distinct expenses.
The government wants a statutory cap on paralegal fees.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
What each side says
Richlin argues paralegal fees are separate from attorney fees.
The government argues paralegal fees fall under the attorney fee cap.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked about the cap difference between 1988 and the Act.
Justice Kennedy asked for two reasons why the government cap is wrong.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-21
Why it matters
This case defines how courts calculate paralegal costs in government litigation. It affects the financial burden on private parties suing the state. It clarifies the scope of recoverable legal expenses under federal law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.