In Jackson v. Borough of Haines,[1] the supreme court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees in the defendant’s malicious prosecution action. Jackson was charged with disorderly conduct, assault, and resisting arrest in 2012. After a first mistrial, Jackson was convicted of all charges, although the conviction for disorderly conduct was reversed by the superior court on appeal in 2016. In 2014, Jackson initiated a civil complaint against the prosecutors of his case, as well as several police officers, alleging false testimony and malicious prosecution. The superior court granted a motion to dismiss the complaints against the prosecutors as they were entitled to prosecutorial immunity. As part of their ruling, the superior court awarded “an attorney’s fee award of $4,311.87 calculated under Alaska Civil Rule 82(b)(2).” The supreme court reviews awards for attorney’s fees on an abuse of discretion standard. The superior court hesitated applying the firm 20 percent standard from Rule 82(b)(2) to Jackson, a pro se litigant. Ultimately, the superior court found Jackson “had presented no evidence to prove his indigence.” The superior court also disagreed the award of attorney’s fees would deter future litigants since he stood to win a large financial payment if his claims had been successful. The supreme court also notes that Jackson’s arguments under Rule 82(b)(3)(J) were unfounded since there was no evidence the prosecutors inflated their attorney’s fees to deter future litigation. The supreme court also refused to decide on Jackson’s argument that forcing indigent clients to pay attorney’s fees violated AS 09.60.010(c)(2) as it was not properly raised and lacked authority to support it. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s award and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees in the defendant’s malicious prosecution action.
[1] 441 P.3d 925 (Alaska 2019).
