NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Attorneys accused of “inaccurate, duplicative, and unreasonable billing practices” in challenging Kansas’ Clinic Licensing Bill

Apr 27, 2012

By Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director, Kansans for Life

While abortion supporters, including the Wichita Eagle newspaper editorial staff, take every opportunity to complain that Kansas tax money is being spent on litigation to uphold pro-life laws enacted in 2011, the state is claiming it is the pro-abortion litigants who are wasting taxpayer dollars.

In the most recently filing in a lawsuit defending a state licensure law (a law that has already been upheld in other states), the state of Kansas is asking the court to deny any fee award to national and local attorneys for two abortion clinics because of  what the state says is “inaccurate, duplicative, and unreasonable billing practices.”

At issue is a “windfall” for abortion clinic attorneys that includes over $78,000 of inflated billings using attorney rates of $400 per hour, according to the state’s filing. All but one of the clinic attorneys lack any experience in this type of litigation, yet they charged 150%-200% of what  attorneys experienced in this specialty would charge- $225 per hour.

Aside from improper filing and billing, and ineligible expenses associated with opposing the filings of a national pro-life medical group, the state in its filing point out a number of what it says are unjustifiable charges.

The lawsuit, brought by two Kansas abortion-providing physician offices– the Center for Woman’s Health and the Aid for Women clinic– was filed against Kansas’ long-sought licensure regulations. Pro-abortion attorneys charge that state regulations negatively impact clinics and women’s “civil” right to abortion, and as such, abortion attorneys have petitioned the federal district court to award them fees as the “prevailing party.”

Problems abound with that request; first, the clinics have not yet “prevailed” [won]. The state points out the clinics sought permanent injunctive relief “but they obtained only a preliminary injunction—granted after a rushed hearing–against temporary regulations in the interest of keeping the status quo while the State promulgated permanent regulations.” Judge Carlos Murguia  issued no written ruling. (For background, see www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/10/abortion-clinics-may-still-challenge-new-clinic-regulations.)

Second, such civil rights law specifies reimbursing “reasonable attorney’s fee.” The state’s attorneys emphasize such reimbursement was not “designed or intended to reward … inaccurate, duplicative, and unreasonable billing practices…[which the clinics’ attorneys] are seeking here.”

Third, the clinics sought to keep temporary regulations issued by the state health department from going into effect July 1, 2011. But both businesses dropped their federal lawsuit after revised, permanent regulations were enacted, and re-filed grievances in the state court  in Topeka, Kansas.

So there it is, the abortion advocates cry foul when money has to be paid for defending constitutionally-permissible laws that they dislike, and then their attorneys try to sock taxpayers with inflated billing.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Categories: Abortion Clinic