This case concerns an issue in which the ACLU most certainly had a stake, which is the issue of attorneys' fees, and the fact that the "Code of Civil Procedure...does not permit a court to award attorneys' for time expended in litigating issues related to the awarrd of fees." This appears to have been a debated issue within the legal community, in particular among public interest attorneys such as those at the ACLU. At the heart of this case is the question of whether the "central purpose" of fee awards is to reimburse attorneys for time spent on fee litigation, or whether the purpose is to reimburse attorneys for time spent on public issue litigation.

As stated by ACLU staff counsel Amitai Schwartz, the effect that this issue has on organizations like the ACLU is of the possiblity of attorneys' fees being diluted by an aggressive defendant. It seems to leave the fee settlement to the discretion of the judge. Serrano v. Unruh examines the issue as a result of "a constitutional challenge to the financing system for California public schools, and a subsequent appeal seeking attorneys' fees for the 'school financing' lawsuit." It is the third in a series of Serrano lawsuits, the first beginning in 1976, and the judgement distinguishes this cases from the proceeding cases by noting, "Unlike their representation of the public interest in Serrano II, however, respondents pursued their own interests in Serrano III." The court decided that the "attorney-fee order regarding Serrano III must be reversed 'for want of the pivotal element of predominant public interest.'"