When it comes to the Case Of Alyeska Pipeline Services Company V. Wilderness Society, Justia states that, “Under the “American Rule” that attorneys’ fees are not ordinarily recoverable by the prevailing litigant in federal litigation in the absence of statutory authorization, respondents, which had instituted litigation to prevent issuance of Government permits required for construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline…” (Justia, n.d.). The court’s analysis that the legislature needs to address is the lawyer’s fees because the legislature has a lot of power when it comes to enacting, amending, and repeal the public policy and can have more authority than any other aspect of the government. The legislature can have more authority on what laws to be passed that includes lawyer fees and the legislature can attempt to change the lawyer fees. There is some resistance when it comes to liberalizing lawyers’ fees awards because some individuals feel that it should not be liberalized and that it is not the legislatures place to handle this issue and shouldn’t be concerned with the issue.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Case Of Alyeska Pipeline Services Company V. Wilderness Society"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

Another approach to this would be the approach of proportionate responsibility. This proportionate responsibility will be best for everyone involved so that everyone involved does have some responsibility and that the responsibility does not just land on one persons shoulder but instead, everyone has a responsibility. The benefits in the long run of following the judges’ rules is that the individuals understands and knows what can and cannot be done according to the judges orders. The disadvantages of following the judges rules is that in most cases people have knowingly disobeyed a judges orders and has ended up paying for that by getting put in jail or being fined. Yes, on a personal level I feel litigation will not influence me in any way when dealing with cases despite the fact that the other side may have also began using the tactic.

According to attorney-client privilege.org, attorney-client privilege is, “is a kind of ‘right to confidentiality’. This means that all the communications between a lawyer and his clients would remain confidential and would not be released to a third party, during or after the conversation is over.” (attorney-client privilege.org, 2014). The extent that the public records or open meeting laws should override the privilege is if there is a life or death situation involved then the public records and open meeting should be disclosed then and only then.

I do feel that the need for lawyers to act zealously to win cases does explain why the lawyers can sometimes act in immoral ways when in a court and dealing with cases that they are a defense attorney for. These attorneys feel there is a certain reputation that he or she needs to uphold to the public, judge, and those who he is defending. However, some lawyers can get too far into their job that they may feel they have to act in an immoral way in order to get the results he or she feels needs to be accomplished or feels is desired by to those who he or she is defending.

The lawyers’ fees should be handled by the legislation because the legislation has more power than any other aspect of the government as they can enact, repeal, or amend a law. This being said that is why the legislature should be involved with lawyers’ fees. Proportionate responsibility should also be taken care of as responsibility should not just fall on one persons’ shoulders. Attorney-client privilege should be available to the public only if there is a life or death situation at hand. Lawyer’s also sometimes act immorally as they may feel they have a reputation to uphold to the individual they are defending, the judge, and the rest of the public.

  • Justia, (n.d.) Alyeska Pipeline Services Company v. Wilderness Society. Retrieved from
  • Attorney-client privilege.org, (2014). Attorney-Client Privilege. Retrieved from