Judge Slashes Attorney Fee Request in Scotland County Sunshine Law Case
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By Mike Scott
MEMPHIS, Mo. – A judge has ordered Scotland County Memorial Hospital District to pay Dr. Randall Tobler $27,247.50 in attorney fees and $429.78 in costs after ruling the hospital board violated Missouri’s Sunshine Law. The decision, issued by Judge Rick Roberts on Feb. 6, 2025, significantly reduced Tobler’s original request for more than $300,000 in legal fees.
The case stems from emergency meetings held by the hospital board on Aug. 15 and 16, 2022, which Tobler alleged were conducted in violation of Missouri’s open meetings law. In a Nov. 8, 2024, judgment, the court agreed, ruling that the board had “purposefully” violated the Sunshine Law, nullifying actions taken in those meetings and imposing the maximum civil penalty allowed by statute.
Fee Dispute and Court Ruling
Following the ruling, Tobler, the hospital’s former CEO, filed for attorney fees under Missouri law, which allows prevailing parties in Sunshine Law cases to recover legal costs. However, the hospital district opposed the request, arguing that the fee demand was excessive and included costs unrelated to the Sunshine Law claim.
Tobler’s initial lawsuit, filed in March 2023, included four counts: a Sunshine Law violation, as well as claims of defamation, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with business expectancy. The latter three claims were dismissed early in the case, leaving only the Sunshine Law claim for trial. The hospital’s attorneys contended that Tobler’s legal team sought reimbursement for time spent on those dismissed claims, as well as for unnecessary legal work.
Judge Roberts agreed with the hospital, ruling that Tobler could recover only for work specifically related to the Sunshine Law claim. In reviewing the billing records, the court determined that Tobler’s attorneys had properly documented only $27,247.50 in legal fees and $429.78 in costs related to the open meetings violation.
Hospital’s Opposition and Legal Arguments
The hospital’s attorneys had argued that Tobler’s request was unjustified, particularly given that the case involved no depositions, no formal discovery, and a bench trial that lasted less than half a day. In its opposition brief, the hospital asserted that awarding Tobler’s attorneys nearly $300,000 in fees would amount to a “windfall” for a case that did not involve complex legal issues.
“Missouri law only allows for ‘reasonable’ attorney fees in Sunshine Law cases,” the hospital’s attorneys wrote. “This was a straightforward case that took minimal court time, and the amount requested by Plaintiff is far beyond what is customary in such cases.”
The hospital also pointed to previous Missouri Sunshine Law cases where attorneys’ fee awards were significantly lower. It cited cases where courts had granted fees ranging from $5,000 to $55,000, arguing that Tobler’s claim was out of line with precedent.
Tobler’s Position
Tobler’s attorneys countered that the fees were justified because they had successfully established a violation of the law and had incurred additional costs in litigating the issue of attorney fees after the hospital objected. They cited Missouri case law stating that courts may award fees for time spent securing an attorney fee judgment, arguing that the Sunshine Law intends to incentivize transparency in government.
Despite this, Judge Roberts ruled that Tobler’s attorneys had failed to separate their work on the Sunshine Law claim from their work on the dismissed claims. As a result, the court found that only $27,247.50 of the requested fees were justified.
Final Judgment and Aftermath
With the judge’s order, the case is effectively closed, though it remains unclear whether either party will appeal. The ruling marks a victory for Tobler in establishing a Sunshine Law violation but delivers a setback in terms of legal cost recovery.
The hospital district, which serves a rural area in northeast Missouri, argued throughout the case that taxpayer funds should not be used to cover excessive attorney fees. “Ultimately, it is the taxpayers of Scotland County and the only hospital in a five-county area that will bear the burden of this penalty,” the hospital’s legal team wrote in court filings.
