Payments to Defense Lawyers

The furor over payments by the county to defense attorneys in private practice, appointed to represent defendants in criminal cases when the public defender declares a conflict of interest, is not a new phenomenon. Several years ago, when I served as a judge of the Los Angeles Municipal Court, a similar situation came to the attention of the judges.

In an attempt to confront the issue, I suggested at that time that a cap be placed on the amount that would be paid to any attorney who accepted such appointments. My colleagues did not agree with this solution.

I still believe that there is wisdom in the concept. If the Municipal Court were to adopt as a court rule that no private attorney would receive, for example, in excess of $15,000 for legal work performed in any calendar year under court appointment, that would have several beneficial effects.

First, the independence of the judges will be retained in making the selection of the attorney to be appointed in a particular case.

Second, the work available will be distributed to a wider cross section of the criminal defense bar. Thus, no lawyer or firm will “specialize” in court appointments and the judges and county auditors will be able to compare the amount charged by lawyers for services they have performed.

Third, no lawyer will be receiving in any year an amount in excess of the cap amount. Any lawyer who continues to accept assignments and perform work after he has reached the cap amount will be doing so as a volunteer and will not be paid by the county for the bills submitted in excess of the cap amount.

This solution is limited to the Municipal Court, where most criminal trials have a duration of under three days. It would do nothing to address the problem of the total dollar amount of the bills borne by county taxpayers. The Alternate Defense Counsel concept is a pilot project, which is reducing that dollar amount. Nor does my proposal address the separate issue of bills submitted by expert witnesses. However, it will maintain the quality of representation of those for whom the county is required by law to provide legal defense, while at the same time diminishing the prospect of the county taxpayers fully underwriting the private practice of law.

RICHARD AMERIAN

Beverly Hills