In attempting to challenge the legal fees proposed by the winning team in the Heller case, DC's Attorney General described the Heller case as using "proven legal theories" and thus, according to him, is not worth a fee enhancement despite being "significant" and "above-average".
If that was the case, why didn't DC settle the case and change it's laws? There's just no way to make that argument coherent.
This entry was published Tue Oct 14 23:54:42 CDT 2008 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2008-10-14 23:54:42.0.
[Tweet]
