FAIRHOPE, Ala. - The private attorneys on contract with the city in the lawsuit brought by the Charles Dyas family against Fairhope and its mayor nearly three years ago over land development issues involving the “Dyas Triangle” and “Corte Rectangle” properties on opposite sides of U.S. 98 are seeking to recover $1.2 million in attorney fees against the Dyases.

Following the court’s dismissal last month of most of the claims against the defendants, Caine O’Rear of the Mobile-based Hand Arendall law firm, the lead attorney for the city and Mayor Tim Kant, filed a motion Dec. 28 announcing plans to seek attorney fees in the case. He also sought permission to submit the amount and details of those fees under seal and not subject to public disclosure.

“Public disclosure prior to trial of Defendants’ attorney’s fees and the description of its attorneys’ services has the potential to reveal confidential information and to prejudice or influence potential members of the jury venire,” O’Rear’s motion stated. “The filing under seal is a workable and reasonable mechanism to avoid the possibility of such prejudice.”

Similar grounds were stated by the city last August as the basis for denying some information sought by The Fairhope Courier regarding attorney fees information billed by the Hand Arendall law firm to the city in the Dyas lawsuit.

“Certain information provided by the attorneys for the City and Mayor in the lawsuit is confidential, subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or otherwise not a public record or writing,” the Fairhope city clerk stated on Aug. 6. “For example, correspondence or other billing information relating to tactics, strategy or work done by counsel or from which tactics might be gleaned is not public information.”

O’Rear told the city not to produce information about total fees billed by the firm and prepared by a city employee in response to The Courier’s request, according to the clerk.

The federal judge denied O’Rear’s motion and ordered the defendant attorneys to submit the amount of fees sought.

“The amount of requested fees can hardly reveal confidences, and the possibility of influencing a venire is far too attenuated to justify such an incursion on the common-law or constitutional right of access to civil judicial proceedings,” U.S. District Judge William H. Steele stated in his Jan. 5 order. “(The defendants’) request to submit under seal the amount of fees sought is denied. The defendants are ordered to include in their brief the statement required by” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B).

That rule states that “unless a statute or court orders otherwise, the motion must state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it.”

The defendant attorneys responded Jan. 18, stating the “amount sought by Defendants to date is estimated to be $1,294,600, consisting of $1,244,000 in attorneys’ fees (which includes paralegal fees), $14,400 in experts fees, and $36,200 in other costs.”

The 20-page motion stated the fees should be recovered from the Dyases because the “plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation and legally meritless. Plaintiffs’ shotgun approach was baseless, improperly motivated and instituted in bad faith.”

The plaintiffs’ have until today, Jan. 28, to file a response to the request for attorneys fees.

The lawsuit set for a February trial was continued in December and is now scheduled for a jury trial in federal court in Mobile in May.

The parties have argued whether the remaining state claims, after all the federal claims were dismissed by the court, should be remanded to Baldwin County Circuit Court, where the lawsuit was originally filed in April 2008. The defendants’ attorneys moved the case to federal court shortly thereafter and seek to keep it there, while the plaintiffs’ attorneys argue it should be returned to state court. The lawsuit was continued in December on the joint motion of both parties, awaiting the court’s ruling on where the lawsuit should be tried.

“This is the fourth lawsuit filed by the Dyases against Fairhope and its officials over this same property,” O’Rear’s motion for attorney fees concludes. “More likely than not, there will be a fifth lawsuit filed in this Court by the Dyases against Fairhope over some event down the road when the Dyases do not get their way – that is, unless a strong message is sent. That message needs to be a court order that the Dyases are responsible for the enormous litigation expense incurred by the Defendants as a result of having to defend against claims which were frivolous and without foundation. Such an order should cill their apparent notion that even frivolous litigation is without its consequences.”

Eric Dyas, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the city and Kant, is an attorney and partner in the Jones Walker law firm in Mobile, the lead firm handling the plaintiffs’ case.

Editor’s note: For extensive prior coverage of this lawsuit and related stories, use the “Search Archives” button on the left side of the homepage to find the articles sought.