« Law - Where do the presidential candidates stand on signing statements? | Main | Ind. Courts - Yet more on: Marion County juvenile court orders release of the juvenile court file and the much larger DCS case file in TaJanay Bailey case »

Monday, December 24, 2007

Ind. Courts - "Dress code suit costs couple $40,931.50: Anderson plaintiffs' predicament illustrates the risks of being your own lawyer"

So reads the headline to this Indianapolis Star story today by Jon Murray. A few quotes from the story:

Laura and Scott Bell took on their school district's new dress code, but their lawsuit was booted from court after they missed critical deadlines and pressed claims that a judge deemed frivolous.

Four months later, the judge has ordered them to pay up for the trouble.

The Bells now are on the hook for $40,931.50, the amount Anderson Community Schools said its law firm charged for fending off the couple's lawsuit in July and August. The couple represented themselves in court.

U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder's decision underlines the risk of wading into legal waters without a lawyer. The danger is higher in litigation, where paying the winning side's attorney fees is common.

"What in the hell are we supposed to do?" Laura Bell asked, noting that the amount is more than the family's annual income. "It's flat ridiculous."

From a side-bar:
The case at a glance

Scott and Laura Bell filed their lawsuit in July. It challenged a strict dress code adopted by Anderson Community Schools, citing violations of Indiana's guarantee of a free public education and their children's rights to free expression.

A U.S. District Court judge granted summary judgment to the school district in August because the Bells had not met deadlines to detail evidence. He also wrote that the Bells, as nonlawyers, could not represent their five school-age children and stepchildren in court and that other claims were frivolous.

The judge sent the remaining state claims back to Madison Circuit Court, where the case is still open but has been dormant. The Bells say they now want it dismissed. [ILB emphasis added]

Note that the U.S. Supreme Court made a narrow exception to the general rule that parents may not represent their children in court in last term's decision in Winkelman v. Parma School District, where, according to SCOTUSBlog, "the Court decided that parents of a disabled child have an independent right to enforce the federal law on public education of children with disabilities. Thus, they do not have to have an attorney. The rights of the parents, the Court found, are independent of those of their child." [See 5/21/07 ILB entry here]

The ILB has been unable to find Judge Tinder's decision online, assuming it has been issued recently. There is the 25-page opinion from August 7th, linked to in this ILB entry from that date.

More: Here it is -- a 6-page "entry on defendant's motion for attorneys' fees," dated Dec. 13th, and the 2-page "order awarding attorneys fees" in the amount of $40,931.50.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 24, 2007 09:28 AM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions