No Attorney’s Fee Award for This Type of Prosecutors’ Misconduct


The case of United States v. Shaygan recently made the news when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned a district court’s award of $600,000 in attorney’s fees to a defendant who was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct. The misconduct was indeed egregious — including recording conversations between a lawyer and a defense investigator, violating discovery orders, and vexatiously filing a superseding indictment in retaliation for the defense filing a motion to suppress. But it should not surprise anyone that the appeals court nevertheless found that a fee award wasn’t appropriate.

Briefly, here is the reason. The Hyde Amendment allows courts to award attorney’s fees to criminal defendants who are the victims of prosecutorial misconduct. Given the extraordinary nature of this relief, awards of fees under this act are rare. Since the amendment went into effect in 1997, it has been applied in only a narrow scope of cases in which “the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.” This has consistently been held to mean that the overall litigating position of the United States was in bad faith; that is to say, that the prosecution brought the case knowing that the charges were false or baseless.

The district court in Shaygan disregarded this precedent by awarding Hyde Amendment attorney’s fees for prosecutorial misconduct that occurred after the charges were brought against the defendant, rather than for misconduct in bringing the charges in the first place. The prosecution had brought charges against Shaygan, a physician, for allegedly distributing and dispensing a controlled substance outside the scope of professional practice. The district court acknowledged that the initiation of the prosecution and the original indictment against Shaygan were brought in good faith—making this precisely the sort of case to which the Hyde Amendment does not apply. It is no surprise then that the higher court overturned this ruling to bring the decision in line with law established by precedent.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ifrah PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Ifrah PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.