Judge awards attorney fees in circus litigation

, The National Law Journal

   | 5 Comments

Animal rights groups that unsuccessfully sued the producer of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus over its treatment of elephants could be on the hook for millions of dollars in attorney fees.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • chienblanc4csi

    @Musiclawyer - to most, true, not peanuts. But to the big financial whale that backs the multi-legged/tentacled animal rights groups, HSUS, $20 Million is merely a pittance. The HSUS brags that its annual budget is $120 Million. Annual. And they run these shakedown attempts regularly - small scale to Big Top scale - and their in-house team of 30 lawyers files amicus briefs all the livelong day. HSUS has at least 2,000 law firms across the country that work for them pro-bono. So, pretty much peanuts to them. It will be interesting to follow the RICO suit against this coalition of groups whose not-so-secret goal is human rights for animals. The plan is to change the property status of animals to "something else", starting with slipping in the term 'guardian' in place of owner in municipal codes and state laws. The state of Rhode Island has already done that. Now the 2013 legislative sessions are looking at the demands of HSUS et al to allow any [self-proclaimed] animal rights groups to dispose of animals seized on an accusation or suspicion of cruelty ONLY, before any court finding of guilt, if charges are dropped, the victim of these accusations are unable to fight back. Feld Corp. refused to be a victim, hooray for them! Judge Sullivan's decision is the best thing to happen to animal lovers ever, although many don't quite realize it yet. This decision should cut into donations, which is their biggest fear, as people realize that the hard earned money they sent to help actual suffering animals is going to defend the leadership of these groups against criminal behavior. Nice.

  • chienblanc4csi

    @Musiclawyer - to most, true, not peanuts. But to the big financial whale that backs the multi-legged/tentacled animal rights groups, HSUS, $20 Million is merely a pittance. The HSUS brags that its annual budget is $120 Million. Annual. And they run these shakedown attempts regularly - small scale to Big Top scale - and their in-house team of 30 lawyers files amicus briefs all the livelong day. HSUS has at least 2,000 law firms across the country that work for them pro-bono. So, pretty much peanuts to them. It will be interesting to follow the RICO suit against this coalition of groups whose not-so-secret goal is human rights for animals. The plan is to change the property status of animals to "something else", starting with slipping in the term 'guardian' in place of owner in municipal codes and state laws. The state of Rhode Island has already done that. Now the 2013 legislative sessions are looking at the demands of HSUS et al to allow any [self-proclaimed] animal rights groups to dispose of animals seized on an accusation or suspicion of cruelty ONLY, before any court finding of guilt, if charges are dropped, the victim of these accusations are unable to fight back. Feld Corp. refused to be a victim, hooray for them! Judge Sullivan's decision is the best thing to happen to animal lovers ever, although many don't quite realize it yet. This decision should cut into donations, which is their biggest fear, as people realize that the hard earned money they sent to help actual suffering animals is going to defend the leadership of these groups against criminal behavior. Nice.

  • chienblanc4csi

    @Musiclawyer - to most, true, not peanuts. But to the big financial whale that backs the multi-legged/tentacled animal rights groups, HSUS, $20 Million is merely a pittance. The HSUS brags that its annual budget is $120 Million. Annual. And they run these shakedown attempts regularly - small scale to Big Top scale - and their in-house team of 30 lawyers files amicus briefs all the livelong day. HSUS has at least 2,000 law firms across the country that work for them pro-bono. So, pretty much peanuts to them. It will be interesting to follow the RICO suit against this coalition of groups whose not-so-secret goal is human rights for animals. The plan is to change the property status of animals to "something else", starting with slipping in the term 'guardian' in place of owner in municipal codes and state laws. The state of Rhode Island has already done that. Now the 2013 legislative sessions are looking at the demands of HSUS et al to allow any [self-proclaimed] animal rights groups to dispose of animals seized on an accusation or suspicion of cruelty ONLY, before any court finding of guilt, if charges are dropped, the victim of these accusations are unable to fight back. Feld Corp. refused to be a victim, hooray for them! Judge Sullivan's decision is the best thing to happen to animal lovers ever, although many don't quite realize it yet. This decision should cut into donations, which is their biggest fear, as people realize that the hard earned money they sent to help actual suffering animals is going to defend the leadership of these groups against criminal behavior. Nice.

  • Diane

    To clarify:

    The Fund for Animals is a part of the Humane Society of the United States. The Fund has been active in animal rights litigation - especially against hunting - for it's entire existence. HSUS likes to distance itself from it's subsidiaries when they get in trouble, while taking credit for whatever good they may do. In any case $10 or even $20 million is pocket change for both HSUS and the Fund for Animals. Despite the faux "merger," The Fund still raises money the same way it did before the "corporate combo" with HSUS, using a New York City address in order to trick people into donating to both groups for the same projects.

    As for the still pending racketeering case, HSUS's CEO Wayne Pacelle signed one of the checks made out to the intoxicated barn helper, while others at HSUS were also involved in the RICO actions. This case is important, but it's just the tip of the iceberg as far as HSUS's long track record of lawbreaking and moral bankruptcy.

  • Musiclawyer

    $20,000,000 is not exactly peanuts.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202594377285

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.