The justices had many questions today for the attorneys in the Omdahl case. Many of the questions related to the meaning of the term "actual attorneys fees" as used in the statute, whether an attorney has to represent a client to recover, and whether attorneys fees are actual if a financial obligation is not incurred by the client. Based on the questions, I did not leave the argument with a sense for how the Court might rule. I wish the parties had talked about the broader implications of the court ruling in their favor, because it could certainly affect attorney fees cases outside of the Open Meetings Act. Here is a question, how can attorney only be an attorney when the attorney represents a client, if the attorney has ethical obligations regardless of whether the attorney is in court and/or representing a client?