Russ Feingold: “it is fairly easy to try to make the words ``not substantially justified'' sound like a reasonable standard. But what…”

“it is fairly easy to try to make the words ``not substantially justified'' sound like a reasonable standard. But what really is going on here is an intrusion into the attorney- client relationship that is very dangerous. I practiced law for several years before running for the Wisconsin State Senate, and I remember always when looking at a client's argument--first of all, I obviously didn't think I could file any argument that was frivolous. That was prohibited both under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure. But there would be a number of occasions where we would have two or three possible arguments to make. One we might think was our strongest argument, and then another might be our sort of middle argument, and then there might be a third legal argument where it was a long shot but we thought the facts were strong. Any good lawyer would bring all three of those arguments, in most cases, because if a judge found any one of the three to be persuasive, that could be the basis. I like to think I would have had the courage as a young attorney to go forward with that third argument, even with this provision. But I didn't have any money, and if I thought that bringing that third argument could cause me to be assessed with attorney's fees that would make it impossible for me to pay my mortgage--I am human.…”