California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Schmid v. Lovette, 154 Cal.App.3d 466, 201 Cal.Rptr. 424 (Cal. App. 1984):
Appellants argue that the instant lawsuit presented no great burden of private enforcement as the single issue involved was straightforward, the litigation was not complex or time consuming, and plaintiff was represented by public interest attorneys and thus did not face the burden of payment for the litigation. Serrano v. Priest, supra, established that "the eligibility of plaintiffs' attorneys for the award of fees granted ... is not affected under the 'private attorney general' theory by the fact that plaintiffs are under no obligation to pay fees to their attorneys, or the further fact that plaintiffs' attorneys received funding from charitable or public sources." (20 Cal.3d 25 at pp. 47-48, 141 Cal.Rptr.
Page 432
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.