The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled to reduce the attorney fees awarded in the case of Marion Sinclair v. Andrew Meisner. The decision, made on August 5, 2026, affects several plaintiffs who claimed their homes were wrongfully foreclosed by Oakland County, Michigan, due to unpaid property taxes. The court found that the original fee request was excessive and not justified by the work performed.
This ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of reasonable billing practices in legal cases, particularly in civil rights litigation. The plaintiffs initially sought over $4.2 million in attorney fees for their legal representation, but the court determined that the amount was inflated and not reflective of the actual work done.
Background
The case involves several plaintiffs, including Marion Sinclair, Tawanda Hall, Curtis Lee, Coretha Lee, and Kristina Govan, who brought claims against Andrew Meisner, the Oakland County Treasurer, and Oakland County itself. The dispute arose after the county foreclosed on the plaintiffs' homes due to their failure to pay property taxes. The plaintiffs argued that the county's actions violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as the homes were worth more than the taxes owed.
The case reached the Sixth Circuit after the plaintiffs initially lost their claims in the district court. However, in a previous ruling, the court held that the county had indeed taken the plaintiffs' property without just compensation. This decision led to a settlement of $500,000 for the plaintiffs, but the issue of attorney fees remained contentious.
The Ruling
The Sixth Circuit, composed of Judges Raymond M. Kethledge, John K. Bush, and John B. Nalbandian, found that the district court's award of attorney fees was excessive. The court noted that the plaintiffs' legal team, led by attorney Scott Smith and the McAlpine firm, had billed over 4,800 hours for their work, which the court deemed unreasonable. In its opinion, the court stated, "The pervasiveness of the improper entries in the plaintiff[s’] billing ledger demonstrates the unreliability of vast swaths of an accounting where the plaintiff claims a cumulative total of more than 980 [in this appeal, more than 4,800] billable hours."
The court vacated the district court's fee award and remanded the case with instructions to reduce the number of compensable hours and adjust the hourly rates. The judges emphasized that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to demonstrate that their requested hours were reasonable and did not make a good faith effort to exclude excessive or unnecessary hours from their fee request.
Impact
The ruling has significant implications for future cases involving attorney fees in civil rights litigation. It underscores the need for attorneys to maintain accurate billing records and to ensure that their hours billed reflect reasonable and necessary work. The decision also serves as a warning to legal counsel about the consequences of excessive billing practices, which can lead to reduced fee awards.
This case may influence how courts assess attorney fees in similar situations, potentially leading to stricter scrutiny of billing practices and greater accountability for legal representation. The ruling also highlights the importance of the Takings Clause and the rights of property owners in foreclosure situations.