Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Plaintiffs' suggestion that. because the suit involved <br />only a small fine and was found by the court to be frivolous. <br />it did not merit the vigorous defense accorded it should be <br />rejected as both irrelevant and contrary to public policy. <br />Any other conclusion could serve to encourage precisely <br />this type of litigation. Plaintiffs' assertion that the <br />hourly rates charged "appear to be" excessive is simply <br />wrong, as the evidence submitted by defendants demonstrates. <br />On the basis of the foregoing and the cocumentary evi- <br />dente appended hereto. defendants respectfully request the <br />court to overrule plaintiffs' objections to the attorneys' <br />fees claimed in defendants' bill of costs and enter plain- <br />tiffs' proposed order taxing those costs. <br />I/ Moreover. as any litigator should know. an attorney <br />would be ill-advised to condition the strenuousness of his <br />defense on his own assessment of the frivclousness of his <br />opponent's case. That determination is for the impartial <br />court. not the biased litigator, and the two have often <br />been known to disagree. The fact that this court did agree, <br />at the conclusion of the case, that the action and its con- <br />duct were indeed groundless, cannot legitimately be cited <br />as evidence that defendants should have protected their <br />interests and the public's interests less vigorously. <br />Z/ It should also be noted that plaintiff s• filing of <br />an incomplete and inadequate administrative record neces- <br />sitated expenditure of a not inconsiderable amount of time <br />that otherwise would not have been required. See plaintiffs' <br />"Motion to Correct the Record" and °Administrative Recore," <br />filed November I, 1982. <br />---------------------------------------------------------------- <br />-1 1- <br />