Omdahl is a case that came out last year, but is scheduled for a MOAA (mini oral argument on application) before the Michigan Supreme Court tomorrow, March 7, 2007. The Court of Appeals held that an attorney representing himself in an Open Meetings Act (OMA) challenge could recover attorneys fees. I think this case could have implications for the recovery of attorneys fees beyond the OMA.

I haven't decided whether I agree with the COA's decision. I think the case could potentially be good for attorneys who decide to represent themselves because they can be compensated for the time they devote to a case even though they did not have a cash outlay to hire an attorney. But the case could be bad for our clients who we represent in cases where any in pro per attorney is on the other side and the in pro per attorney did not actually expend money on attorneys fees.

Update:

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?