Legal wrangling: City argues against $604K fees for Confederate statue attorneys 

A few Confederate supporters and protestors met outside the courthouse on Wednesday. Staff photo. A few Confederate supporters and protestors met outside the courthouse on Wednesday. Staff photo.

Extensive and lengthy cross-examinations were heard in Charlottesville Circuit Court on Thursday as  lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the city to prevent it from removing statues of two Confederate generals broke down why they believe the city owes over $604,000 in attorney fees and litigation costs. 

The lawsuit was filed by the Monument Fund, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and 11 individual plaintiffs two-and-a-half years ago, after City Council in 2017 voted to remove statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

A day after ruling against the city’s interpretation of the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment and issuing a permanent injunction that stipulates Charlottesville cannot remove the Confederate statues, Judge Richard Moore heard the testimony of two witnesses for the plaintiffs about attorney fees.

Jock Yellott is the executive director of the Monument Fund and has performed the roles of both a plaintiff and paralegal in this case. He submitted to the court a detailed packet that outlined all the legal costs accrued by the plaintiffs and explained how they settled on $604,000. 

The Monument Fund and Sons of Confederate Veterans have already paid a combined $87,500 to their attorneys, so they’re seeking reimbursement of those payments, with the remaining $516,500 going directly to the lawyers.

Yellott was cross-examined by Chief Deputy City Attorney Lisa Robertson, who spent several hours going over the bill line by line and asking Yellott to verify specific tasks he fulfilled, ranging from case research to collating papers. 

Moore stopped Robertson midway through her questioning to inquire about the significance of her thorough review of the information. She insisted that it was her right to do so and the information she was focused on would be referred to in her closing arguments.

After Yellott finally stepped down from the stand and court took a break for lunch, Moore heard the testimony of Charles Lollar, a Norfolk attorney who was presented as an expert witness on legal fees. Lollar told the court he found the rates charged by the plaintiffs’ attorneys to be “necessary and appropriate” for the amount of work required for this case. For his testimony, Lollar billed the plaintiffs $12,000—a figure included in their request for the $604,000.

“Without these services…those monuments wouldn’t be there,” Lollard said.

Some of the other contributors to that total include the bills of Braxton Puryear and Ralph Main, the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, who charged $300 and $310 per hour, respectively, for their services. University of Richmond law professor Kevin Walsh, who specializes in constitutional law and assisted earlier in the case, charged $700 an hour. Yellott also requested $160 an hour for the work he did as a paralegal.

The 10 individual plaintiffs—one died last year—are also seeking $500 each in compensatory damages. Eight of them testified Wednesday about the emotional distress caused by their inability to see the statues for the 188-day period they were covered in tarps at the direction of the city.

 Moore is expected to hear final arguments Friday before making a decision on the amount owed in damages and attorney fees.

Posted In:     News

Tags:     ,

Previous Post

Permanent injunction: Judge says Confederate statues are here to stay

Next Post

Case (almost) closed: Plaintiffs to receive attorneys’ fees, but not damages  

Our comments system is designed to foster a lively debate of ideas, offer a forum for the exchange of ad hoc information, and solicit honest, respectful feedback about the work we do. We’re glad you’re participating. Here are a few simple rules to follow, which should be relatively straightforward.

1) Don’t call people names or accuse them of things you cannot support.
2) Don’t direct foul language, racial slurs, or offensive terms at other commenters or our staff.
3) Don’t use the discussion on our site for commercial (or shameless personal) promotion.

We reserve the right to remove posts and ban commenters who violate any of the rules listed above, or the spirit of the discussion. We’re trying to create a safe space for a wide range of people to express themselves, and we believe that goal can only be achieved through thoughtful, sensitive editorial control.

If you have questions or comments about our policies or about a specific post, please send an e-mail to

Leave a Reply

1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
Brian Lambert Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Brian Lambert
Brian Lambert

Wow. Just…wow.