Supreme Court: Private Attorney Hired by a City Can Claim Legal Immunity

04/18/12

On Tuesday, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private attorneys and other experts temporarily hired by a city to aid in investigations can assert immunity from lawsuits alleging constitutional violations and seeking damages. The lawyer who benefited from the judgment was backed on the issue by the Obama administration, 27 states, the American Bar Association and many other groups representing cities, mayors and state legislatures from around the country. The decision affected the entire nation.

The finding of the Supreme Court that individuals temporarily retained by the government are entitled to the same level of immunity (in relation to the work done for the government) that was enjoyed by their public employee counterparts is commendable. It also strengthens the arms of government authorities to hire subject experts on contingency basis and provide appropriate state attention to matters based on priority.

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

The case of Filarsky v. Delia originated from the act of the city of Rialto, California, hiring Steve Filarsky, a private attorney, to probe the possible misuse of sick leaves by city employees. After the investigation was over, Nicholas Delia, a firefighter accused of improperly taking sick leaves, sued Filarsky. While on medical leave, Delia was captured on video as buying fiberglass insulation at a home improvement store. Filarsky probed Delia about the insulation in course of the investigation.

Two department officers, under order of the fire chief went to Delia's house to confiscate the unopened rolls of insulation as evidence. Ultimately city officials closed the case against Delia. However, Delia claimed the search was unconstitutional and sued the city, the fire department, and Filarsky.

Though a federal judge dismissed Delia's lawsuit, the appeals court ruled that Delia could only proceed against Filarsky, as in the capacity of a private attorney, Filarsky could not claim the legal immunity that could be claimed by public employees on the case.

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Listing

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the appeals court and held that the lower court (the high court in this case) was right in asserting that individuals hired by government are not barred from immunity solely on the ground that they are not permanent public employees.

Writing for the unanimous bench, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that providing immunity to those hired temporarily, allowed the government to attract subject experts and served public interest.

Supporters of Filarsky said that the decision helped cities and counties to access subject expertise on a case-by-case basis without being saddled with a limited number of permanently employed subject experts and without limiting options available to the government.

The Supreme Court case is Filarsky v. Delia, No 10-1018.