Skip to content

UF ordered to pay $372K to professors’ lawyers in testimony dispute

The University of Florida campus in Gainesville. (Bryan Pollard/Dreamstime/TNS)
The University of Florida campus in Gainesville. (Bryan Pollard/Dreamstime/TNS)
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:

A federal judge has awarded more than $372,000 in legal fees to attorneys who represented professors in a high-profile lawsuit against the University of Florida over being able to serve as expert witnesses in court cases.

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a ruling that rejected arguments by the university that it should not have to cover the fees. Walker awarded $372,219 in fees to attorneys from two firms, while also tacking on $1,575 in costs.

Political science professors Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald and Daniel Smith filed the lawsuit in 2021 after university officials denied their requests to serve as witnesses for groups fighting a new state elections approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the GOP-controlled Legislature. In denying the professors’ requests, university officials said going against the executive branch of the state government was “adverse” to the school’s interests.

The case drew widespread attention, and the university walked back the decision on the professors’ testimony. Then-university President Kent Fuchs said they would be allowed to be paid to testify if they did so on their own time and did not use university resources.

Walker based the decision in part on a preliminary injunction that he issued in January 2022, finding that the university had violated the professors’ First Amendment rights. The university appealed, and the case was ultimately dismissed this year after university officials adopted a revised policy about the disputed issues.

“Plaintiffs received enduring relief in the form of their preliminary injunction, followed by a substantial rule change that eliminated the constitutional issue that prompted plaintiffs to bring this case to vindicate their First Amendment rights in the first place,” Walker wrote last week. “In this way, the case undoubtedly served a public purpose.”

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from the Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Donnelly + Gross LLP law firms.