|
Lyle V. Harris , for the editorial board, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Published on: 01/17/08
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/16/parked_0117.html
The only thing uglier than a sore loser is a sore winner. After vanquishing the opponents of a parking deck in Piedmont Park, the well-heeled victors are trying to punish those who dared challenge them in court. That's very disappointing.
In 2005, the Piedmont Park Conservancy and the Atlanta Botanical Garden were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Fulton County Superior Court by Friends of Piedmont Park Inc. The ad hoc group had tried in vain to block construction of the multistory deck, designed to accommodate throngs of visitors to both venues.
The conservancy is a nonprofit group that manages and maintains the signature park in Midtown on behalf of the city of Atlanta, which owns it. The neighboring botanical garden, also a nonprofit, offered to raise $30 million needed to build the deck and will share the revenues generated by parking fees.
The opposition was led by Doug Abramson, a neighborhood resident and lawyer, who fought a principled campaign to find a viable alternative to the parking deck that would be less disruptive to the community. Moreover, Abramson and his group sought to require the conservancy and the botanical garden to follow the state's open records laws in disclosing their sources of funding and other matters he correctly asserted should be made available to the general public.
With the aid of several open-government groups, Abramson won an important battle in the case; the conservancy was ordered to release relevant documents about the parking deck and a planned access road. (Judge T. Jackson Bedford did not require the garden to do likewise.) But Abramson and his followers lost the larger war, and construction of the deck is under way.
Michael Coleman, a prominent attorney who has been representing the defendants, is now making good on an earlier legal threat to counter-sue. In the suit, Coleman, who charges $480 an hour, is demanding that Abramson and his group repay $273,023.22 in attorney fees incurred by his clients. Although perfectly legal, Coleman's lawsuit amounts to petty retaliation intended to penalize Abramson and intimidate others who might have the temerity to defy such formidable institutions in the future.
The boards of the conservancy and the garden are populated by Atlanta dons and doyennes whose commitment to civic responsibility runs deep. But for citizens who have set such a high standard for themselves and others in the past, this lawsuit is an unnecessary and regrettable low blow.
EQUAL TIME
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/16/equaled_0117.html
Botanical Garden's pursuit of legal fees is merited
By MICHAEL COLEMAN, Published on: 01/17/08 � Michael Coleman is the attorney for the Atlanta Botanical Garden.
In 2004, the Atlanta Botanical Garden developed a visionary plan to enhance public access to the garden, while also increasing green space. The project, a new parking deck built into a hillside in a blighted area, would have the additional benefit of enhancing access to Piedmont Park. The Friends of Piedmont Park and its principal, Doug Abramson, waged a fierce political and public relations battle through every step of the process to prevent this project from becoming a reality.
Fortunately, political and community leaders recognized the tremendous benefits of approving the deck, and FOPP was unsuccessful in its efforts to stop the project. FOPP's frivolous lawsuit represents a blatant effort to circumvent the outcome of the democratic political process.
As a nonprofit entity with limited resources, every dollar is precious to the garden. Money spent to defend frivolous legal claims is money that could otherwise be used to educate schoolchildren or further conservation efforts. In light of the foregoing, it stretches the bounds of credulity to suggest that the garden should abandon its claim for legal fees.
Plaintiffs were told at the outset of the case that the garden would seek to recover attorney fees if they proceeded to press the frivolous claims. Plaintiffs chose to proceed. As an example of the lawsuit's frivolousness , the plaintiffs sought to apply the "public bidding" laws to the garden's project. The public bidding laws clearly apply to the expenditure of public money by governmental entities; whereas the project being undertaken by the garden involves the expenditure of private money by a private entity. It is hard to imagine a more frivolous claim.
The award of attorney fees to prevailing parties is an essential part of the ongoing effort to reduce the flood of needless litigation that threatens our judicial system. It is not unusual for the prevailing party to request fees � FOPP would have undoubtedly done so had it prevailed.
Indeed, FOPP requested an award of litigation costs and attorney fees in its initial complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is very familiar with this concept, as it has been awarded millions of dollars in attorney fees in other cases, charging rates much higher than the reduced rates that were charged by the garden's attorneys. The FOPP's clearly frivolous litigation, brought for improper purposes, is the epitome of the type of claim that laws governing attorney fee awards were designed to prevent. |
|
