Speaker Law
Blog

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' award of attorneys fees to the in pro per attorney under the Open Meetings Act in Omdahl v. West Iron Board of Education. The Open Meetings Act allows the recovery of "actual attorney fees." The Court reasoned that an "attorney" implies an agency an agency relationship with another person or entity. Therefore, to obtain attorney fees under the Act, the attorney has to represent another, and not himself. The majority opinion did not analyze whether the attorney fees were actually incurred.

Labels: Agency Relationship, attorney fees, in pro per, Michigan, Open Meetings Act

---

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?

Labels: attorney fees, OMA, Open Meetings Act

---