Mich. same-sex marriage lawyers seek nearly $2M in fees

DETROIT — Six lawyers who represented the Hazel Park, Mich., couple whose case was at the heart of the landmark Supreme Court gay marriage decision last month, are asking a federal judge to make the state of Michigan pay them nearly $2 million in legal fees.

The lawyers filed the request Saturday, detailing the hardships they endured the past four years while representing April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse. The couple's legal team is asking for $1,927,450 in fees, according to court records. The lawyers, who each billed $350 per hour, worked thousands of hours on the case and examined tens of thousands of documents necessary to the litigation.

Representatives for Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney Bill Schuette, could not be immediately be reached for comment Sunday by the Free Press. DeBoer and Rowse's lawyers could not be reached for comment.

Although the Supreme Court ultimately decided in their favor to legalize same-sex marriages, the lawyers noted that Michigan and the country has a "virulent and persistent prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals." The lawyers blamed the state for waging an "exceptionally protracted" fight against same-sex couples.

"This case was both rare and difficult because Plaintiffs' counsel were defending members of an historically unpopular minority. Although public opinion has shifted considerably in the years that this case has been pending, when filed, a decided majority of the Michigan population were opposed to marriage by same-sex couples," they said. "Any claim that public opinion has now shifted decidedly toward support of gay and lesbian people in this state is belied by Michigan's most recent election..."

The lawyers stated that the case was necessary after the state falsely asserted that there remained a genuine dispute within the social science community that the children of same-sex parents fare worse than those raised by opposite-sex couples.

"Second, the state defendants moved successfully to stay the judgment in the Sixth Circuit, proclaiming, inaccurately, a "likelihood of success" on appeal, which caused further delay in the execution of the judgment and awarding of fees," the lawyers said. "This factor bears heavily in favor of awarding counsel fees at their current hourly rate in this case."

The request for legal fees only pertains to the six attorneys — Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel, Kenneth Mogill, Robert Sedler, Mary Bonauto and Vickie Henry — who represented DeBoer and Rowse. But the court filing notes that in total eight attorneys, seven law clerks, and multiple paralegals helped during the case.

"Extensive attorney hours were expended, both before and after the complaint was filed in this case, due to its novel character," they wrote. "...The questions presented were unquestionably novel, complex and difficult. This was the first trial in history challenging the Michigan Marriage Amendment, and Michigan's statutory marriage and second-parent adoption bans. It was only the third trial in U.S. history challenging a marriage preclusion for same-sex couples."

The discovery process was extensive and shoe-horned, the lawyers said, adding that they sifted through thirty years of research and prior published works to prepare for the case.

One lawyer, Carole Stanyar, remarked that she had to sell her house to continue representing the couple, who could not afford to pay the legal team.

Stanyar helped fund the litigation through the proceeds of the sale of her home, according to the court filing.

The lawyers also said that during large portions of the case, they were unable to take on other cases because of the workload in the DeBoer case.

"Counsel had to turn away new business, ongoing clients had to be reassigned to substitute counsel, and associates had to be hired to assist with cases that could not be reassigned," the attorneys wrote. "Because the litigation was on such a fast track, there was no capacity to weave in other cases' workload with the demands of the DeBoer case. For all practical purposes, counsels' law practices were shut down for long periods over the last three years."

The lawyers are also arguing that due to the "exceedingly short time track to trial," they were under extreme time pressure to locate experts from around the country, and then to depose them, which was a key part of the case.

"The depositions themselves were lengthy, taking between four and seven hours (on record) per deposition," they wrote. "This case involved more expert witnesses than any other in counsels' career. Fund-raising for these case costs was exceedingly difficult and time consuming, with the average fundraiser falling well short of funding the fees of even one expert... .The stress associated with raising funds for this litigation cannot possibly be overstated."