I agree with most of that, thus my comment about reforming the EAJA, not getting rid of it.
I don't like non-profits will tens of millions in the bank, getting paid to sue the Federal Government and making a profit while doing so. I doubt many others like it and I doubt the folks trying to do good work at agencies like it.
As currently written, it places a burden of perfection on an agency. That is not a reasonable standard. Hard for good people to do good work when they have the "agents of perfection" following behind with their lawyers.
I think the net asset requirement should apply to non-profits, the same as it does to corporations and individuals. One has to ask, "Why should multi-million dollar enterprises like HSUS, DOW, CBD now get reimbursed for reasonable legal fees when they prevailed on such a small part of this claim; a part that will not change the substance of how Wyoming manages wolves?"
They pay their attorneys $50 per hour, yet the reasonable reimbursement rate might be $250. That's a pretty high mark up and explains why CBD has mostly attorneys on staff, not biologists. The more attorneys you have, the more hours they call "put on the books," the greater the reimbursement.
I think that a prevailing party must prevail on ALL aspects of their claim in order to get reimbursement, requiring people to be more precise in their claims. If they don't prevail on ALL claims made, they don't get paid.
I would go so far as to say under the ESA, the law where most EAJA reimbursement claims are made, each claim must be made as a separate claim, with the loser paying all legal costs. Have these groups have some skin in the game on these ESA lawsuits.
Right now, the EAJA is like being able to sit at the Blackjack table, betting with the other guys money, keeping all winnings and having the taxpayer front the losses. Nice gig to have if you are the guy keeping the winnings.
I can think of many other good reforms that would still allow individuals to sue the Government, yet allow the agencies to go about their duties to manage. The EAJA was passed with good intent. It needs to stay in place, with some targeted reforms. Yet, like most other good legislation, sooner or later, some conniver will figure out a way to scam it.
m
I know you are but what am I
