are significantly below market rates in the Southern District of Florida for those with the reputation and experience of the ACLU’s lawyers, as explained above. For factor six, the nature of the fee agreement between local counsel and the ACLU created an expectation in the ACLU of.receiving fees when they accepted the .case.. For factor eight, the results obtained, the ACLU negotiated and oversaw the implementation of broad reforms in operations and conditions at the County’s jail facilities. For factor ten, the undesirability of the case, various courts have recognized the stigma associated with corrections litigation, which was'accentuated here in light of the pending motion to terminate when the ACLU joined as co-counsel. See Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 903 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). For factor eleven, the client relationship,
recognizing the undesirability of prison conditions litigation holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison conditions to establish an eighth amendment violation holding that the remedy in a prison conditions case must remedy actual injuries that have been identified by the court and suffered by the plaintiffs holding that a threemember panel consisting of prison officials and potentially inmates is sufficiently impartial to adjudicate major infractions insofar as knowledge of the conditions of the prison environment is important to an understanding of the significance of events which occur therein prison officials and offenders theoretically comprise an ideal disciplinary hearing committee