Committee Reports
Catalyst Theory Attorneys’ Fees: Amicus in Jaquez v. Tietz
Brief for Amici Curiae New York City Bar Association, New York County Lawyers Association, The New York State Bar Association and The Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University School of Law in Support of Petitioner-Respondent
SUMMARY
On September 28, 2026, the New York City Bar Association, through its Pro Bono and Legal Services Committee, joined the New York County Lawyers Association, the New York State Bar Association, and the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University School of Law in an amicus curiae brief. The brief urges the New York Court of Appeals to hold that a litigant whose lawsuit prompts a state agency to voluntarily provide the relief sought has “substantially prevailed” under the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act.
The brief, filed in Jaquez v. Tietz (APL-2026-00027), addresses whether the State Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) permits catalyst theory attorneys’ fees where the State’s voluntary corrective action moots a proceeding before any merits judgment or consent decree. Amici argue that without the catalyst theory, agencies can avoid fee liability by granting relief late in litigation, which undermines the incentive the Legislature created for lawyers to represent low-income New Yorkers in challenging unjustified agency action. Amici argue that a litigant “substantially prevails” where litigation catalyzes voluntary corrective action that affords the relief sought, and asks the Court to affirm that attorneys fees are available in such circumstances under the EAJA.