Eleventh Circuit: Private Lawyers Under Contract to State Not State Actors Under §1983

Judge Donald Graham, U.S. District Court, Southern District

Maria Sorolis

In yet another stunning, outrageous, and "unpublished decision", The Eleventh Circuit departs from the United States Supreme Court written opinions and well settled law to rule that private attorneys with a principal/agent relationship with the state are not state actors.

Even if Mason had alleged conduct in his complaint that could possibly create a constitutional claim, Koji and Sorolis are private parties - not state actors who could be held liable under §1983, § 1985 or § 1986. See Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001).

Defendants Koji and Sorolis as attorneys of record for their state actor client, Highlands County, have a principal-agent relationship that is recognized in every jurisdiction in the United States. The actions of the agent bind the principal. State Ex Rel. Gutierrez v. Baker, 276 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 1973) (“It is a general rule that a client is bound by the acts of his attorney within the scope of the latter's authority.”). "Generally, an attorney serves as agent for his client; the attorney's acts are the acts of the principal, the client." Soro v. Bank Of Miami, 537 So.2d 1135 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1989). See also McNeal v. Wainwright, 722 F.2d 674, 677 (11th Cir. 1984)

“[O]ur cases to hold, to act "under color of" state law for § 1983 purposes does not require that the defendant be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting "under color" of law for purposes of § 1983 actions. . . ; [a]nd it is of no consequence in this respect that the judge himself is immune from damages liability. Immunity does not change the character of the judge's action or that of his co-conspirators. . . [P]rivate parties who corruptly conspire with a judge in connection with such conduct are thus acting under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983 as it has been construed in our prior cases.” Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28-29 (1980). “Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting "under color" of law for purposes of the statute. To act "under color" of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents,[ ].” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982).