Tribes’ relationship with NARF clarified
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
This letter is a response to the submission by Jolene Frey of Polson, entitled “NARF deserves scrutiny from CSKT membership” published in the Jan. 9 issue. The Native American Rights Fund and the Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes submit this joint response in order to correct Ms. Frey’s misunderstanding of NARF’s claim for attorney’s fees in the Cobell case (class-action case for claims for federal mismanagement of individual tribal member trust assets) and bring clarity to some misperceptions Ms. Frey has regarding the contribution the Tribal Council made to NARF from the CSKT portion of the Salazar settlement (separate case involving claims by tribes over federal mismanagement of trust assets held by tribal governments).
First, NARF is not seeking contingency fees for its work in the Cobell case. Rather, NARF is seeking attorneys’ fees and costs for the time and expenses that NARF invested in litigating the case. In 2006, NARF’s lead Cobell attorney was hired away by NARF’s co-counsel in the case, the law firm of Kilpatrick-Townsend. Also in 2006, tribal governments were facing a potential statute of limitations deadline to file claims by tribal governments in what would become the Salazar litigation. With Cobell well under way and fully staffed, NARF turned towards ensuring that unrepresented tribal governments got their claims against the United States submitted before the potential statutory cut-off date. It was during this period of time that NARF was dropped as “of counsel” in the Cobell case without notice. Contrary to Ms. Frey’s mischaracterization of NARF as having “dropp[ed] the Cobell plaintiffs at a critical juncture in this litigation,” NARF was removed from the case without its knowledge. Now NARF simply seeks to recover the considerable attorney’s fees and expenses it invested during 10 years of litigation.
Similarly, NARF represented most tribes in the Salazar case absent any contingency agreement, including the CSKT. NARF spent its own attorney time and invested its own money in advancing tribes’ claims, even selling one of its own buildings to cover expert witness and consultant’s fees. When tribes ultimately reached settlement in Salazar, NARF asked for voluntary contributions. Unlike a for-profit private law firm, the attorneys and directors of NARF received no bonuses or share of litigation profits resulting from the Salazar settlements. As is typical of nonprofit organizations, the funds NARF received went back into the organization in order to ensure NARF can continue to represent tribes and tribal members in the future.
As Ms. Frey noted, the Tribal Council took action to make a contribution to NARF from the CSKT’s share of the Salazar settlement. The Tribal Council would like to note that the amount contributed to NARF for its legal representation is a fraction of what a private firm’s contingency fee would have been, and was used by NARF to recoup attorney time and NARF resources that were advanced during the litigation. The Tribal Council would also like to note that NARF has worked on many important CSKT issues over the years, including protecting the religious sanctity of Kootenai Falls, all at no charge. The Tribal Council deemed the contribution to NARF as an investment in the continued existence of an important advocate for Indian Country.
Both NARF and the Tribal Council welcome Ms. Frey’s admonition to tribal members to visit NARF’s website (www.narf.org) and see for yourselves the extensive work NARF has done, and continues to do, for tribes and tribal people on a vast array of issues and causes throughout the nation. The CSKT has been proud to partner with NARF, and hopes the contribution from the CSKT allows NARF to continue its work for generations to come.
