◆ SpookStack

if. The Public Interest Requires Rehearing In Banc To Correct The Erroneous Award Of Interlocutory Counsel Fees Contrary To 42 U.S.C. 1988. The panel's ruling that attorneys' fees relating to the appeal should be included in the costs awarded to appellants (Slip Op. 75) constitutes an unwarranted: and unprecedented assessment. The panel did not hold that the individual federal appellees did anything illegal; it simply held that factual questions. are presented con- cerning the legality of the appellees' conduct. Nonetheless, the panel has awarded the appellants attorneys’ fees in connection with ‘this appeal, and petitions: for attorneys' fees. totalling more than . ra / $435,000 have been filed. § This award which so far as the panel . . . - fs z 14/ indicates may be assessed the individual appellees. personally _ Saran eneemeeeemeneeneeneg re ee 12 cont'd/ for in bane review, we believe this is an important issue, and we are filing a-separate petition for rehearing on this issue with the panel. If the-Court grants the petition for rehearing in banc, we stand ready, of course, to argue the sanctions issue to the entire Court. , We also respectfully suggest that since the majority refused to pass judgment upon the conduct of federal defendants' counsel, even if this Court denies rehearing, it would be appropriate to delete all references to the names of counsél in the body of Judge Swygert's opinion and -to substitute instead the reference, "federal defendants’ counsel." . . 13/ ‘The Court's. Order of May 29, 1979, granted appellees until June 28, 1979, to respond to the petitions for attorneys" fees -and costs. Federal appellees not only object to the allowance of these attorneys' fees in the circumstances of this case but will, at an appropriate time, vigorously contest the amounts sought in these petitions. 14/ This action is brought against the federal appellees as indi- viduals, and is not against the United States. While the Department - of Justice is representing the individual appellees, it is unclear whether the Government has authority to pay any attorneys' fees which might be ordered by the Court. Compare Shannon v. U. S. Dept. of HUD, 577 F.2d 854 (C.A. 3, 1978), cert. denied, U.S. , 99 S.Ct. 611 (1979). Absent special legislation, the United States does not Pay judgments against individual employees. - 16 =