Lawyers for Poor Take Big Bite of Budget : Money: Fourteen lawyers who represent clients when the public defender is faced with a conflict of interest were paid more than $100,000 each by the county last year.

San Diego County paid 14 lawyers more than $100,000 apiece in 1989 to handle cases for poor people unable to afford a lawyer themselves, according to county figures.

One of the 14 lawyers, criminal defense specialist Donald LeVine, was paid more than $200,000, according to the figures.

Another, Juvenile Court expert Peggy Moore, billed the county for 3,758 hours--the equivalent of a 72-hour week, every week of the year--and is being investigated by the county district attorney’s office for billing discrepancies and possible fraud. Moore said she has done nothing wrong.

In addition to the 14 who each earned more than $100,000, 58 other attorneys were paid more than $50,000 last year, according to the figures, which detail total payments of more than $11 million to 197 lawyers on cases in which the public defender’s office had a conflict of interest.

The payments for the so-called “conflicts” cases range from $210,458, paid to LeVine, to $6.74, paid to Escondido attorney Jeffrey M. Cheyne, according to a list of the attorneys prepared at the request of The Times.

Lawyers on the list said in recent interviews that the tally is misleading, because it represents a total sum paid to the attorneys. Out of that figure, the attorneys said, they subsequently had to pay trial expenses and office costs.

In most cases, the fees paid to the 14 attorneys were substantially less than the total amounts received, according to a list of the lawyers’ fees prepared by the county. And take-home pay was less than that, according to the attorneys.

The county figures underscore the high cost of farming out the conflicts cases to the private bar--that is, to attorneys paid an hourly rate, most making $40, $50 or $60 per hour. Nevertheless, attorneys on the list, as well as others who handle conflicts cases, contend that the county is getting its money’s worth.

In many interviews, the lawyers said they actually are underpaid by contemporary legal standards, where billing rates of $200 per hour are not uncommon, and offer their indigent clients a wealth of experience whose value at a trial can’t be measured.

In recent weeks, however, the focus of county budget planners has been squarely on the bottom line. Stung by an astounding overrun in the cost of legal defense--the county expects to pay a total in fiscal 1990 of $14 million for conflicts cases, up 609% from the initial budget of $2.3 million--planners have proposed the creation of a new county law office to handle conflicts cases.

The county plan, disclosed two weeks ago and due to be presented in May to the Board of Supervisors, calls for an in-house staff of lawyers to take over the work beginning Jan. 1, 1991, county officials said.

Under the plan, the in-house staff would be made up of salaried employees. Experienced trial lawyers on the county payroll now earn a fixed salary ranging from $44,500 to $74,048 a year.

Because salary costs would be fixed, the county, which is required to provide poor people with a free lawyer in certain criminal and juvenile court cases, expects the plan to eventually save up to $5 million a year, budget officials have said.

Under the current system, the Department of Alternate Defense Counsel, which lawyers call the “conflicts office,” coordinates the assignment of cases to the private lawyers. Most cases involve multiple defendants or, in juvenile court, any number of relatives, all of whom may be entitled to a free lawyer.

To qualify for work, attorneys must pass muster with a committee of lawyers recommended by the county bar association and selected by Municipal and Superior Court judges. Attorneys include criminal defense and juvenile court specialists.

According to figures supplied by the conflicts office, the county paid 197 of those lawyers $11,230,104 in 1989 to take on appointed work.

The county actually hired more lawyers and paid even more money, said Elliot G. Lande, director of the conflicts office. But Lande said he could not reveal how much more money, in part because of state law and partly because of bookkeeping methods.

The $11,230,104 total does not include death-penalty cases, the costs of which are kept secret by state law, Lande said. In addition, the total does not account for lawyers who took on a case in 1989 who have not been retained in 1990, nor does it take in a few minor categories of cases that also go through the office, such as guardianships, he said.

Because the list does not include attorneys who worked on death-penalty cases, it does not include stalwarts of the local criminal defense bar--such as Alex Landon and Steve Feldman, who worked together last year on a death-penalty case.

Another category not found in the list is a breakdown of how many hours each attorney billed the county, Lande said.

However, the hours total is easily calculated for juvenile court specialists--such as Moore--because the fee for that work is a standard $40 an hour, Lande said. For instance, the $150,350 Moore was paid in attorneys’ fees, divided by $40 an hour, yields 3,758 hours.

The hours total is not readily available for attorneys who handle criminal work, or who have a mixed practice, because the hourly rate for different work varies, in most cases, from $40 to $60 an hour, Lande said.

The list of the top 14 earners is split fairly evenly between those lawyers whose practice centers on juvenile court cases and those who handle criminal defense.

Lande referred one lawyer’s records late last year to the district attorney’s office because of billing discrepancies that could not be explained, he said. Neither he nor Steve Casey, spokesman for the district attorney’s office, would identify the lawyer.

But Moore confirmed in an interview that she was the lawyer being investigated. She said she spent 100% of her working time handling appointed juvenile court cases, worked every one of the 3,758 hours she billed for and contended the investigation would show she reported her time honestly.

“They’re saying, “Oh my God, she cost the county $180,000,” she said, referring to the $180,434 total the county paid her in 1989, $150,350 of which was her fees. “In most of those cases I was representing children who were abused, molested or neglected. Those kids need care. I’m probably the only constant they have on their cases.”

Casey said the investigation is “active and under way” but declined to elaborate.

The top earner, LeVine, received “probably 98%” of his income in 1989 from appointed work, he said. A substantial chunk of the $210,458 LeVine was paid last year went toward the defense of Tamafua Trillas, 23, of National City. When the Superior Court trial concluded two months ago, Trillas was acquitted of murder in the Sept. 21, 1988, death of Marie Bradley, a 27-year-old insurance saleswoman.

“I wish I really had $210,000,” LeVine said. “Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.”

Of the $210,458 the county paid LeVine, he distributed more than $85,000 to expert witnesses and investigators, leaving about $124,000, he said. From that he paid about $55,000 for office expenses, including secretarial wages, malpractice insurance and legal training, he said.

Left over, LeVine said, was $69,075.

The discrepancy between the $92,461 Lande’s office figured LeVine earned in fees and the $69,075 LeVine calculated he had left is attributable to office expenses, LeVine said.

A wage of $69,075, LeVine said, “is lower than some public defenders (earn), higher than others. And they get a few things I don’t--medical, dental, retirement benefits. My wife works, and she gets that kind of stuff, so she has to keep working to get us those benefits.”

In addition, he said, that $69,075 is before taxes.

“I don’t like people knowing my personal business but, on the other hand, people have a right to know, and I’m not ashamed,” LeVine said.

Other lawyers among the top 14 noted a similar drop-off from total paid to amount left over. That is, they often retained less than half:

* Kay Sunday, who was paid $139,193, of which $72,806 was in fees, took home about $55,000 from work she performed for the county, she said.

* Nancy Rosenfeld, paid $134,496, of which $88,878 was in fees, said she ended up with about $52,000.

* Jack Boltax, paid $125,269, of which $69,198 was in fees, reported about $53,000 on his 1989 taxes, he said.

Even at $50 or $60 an hour, the attorneys said they could be considered a bargain.

“When you’re paying us $50 an hour, you’re paying someone you know has met certain qualifications to handle it and does not have a caseload that will allow them to see a client for the first time the day before trial and say, for instance, ‘Will you testify or not?’ ” said Rosenfeld.

LeVine said he believes the lawyers deserved “more, to be perfectly honest. If you look at a civil attorney who has been doing this as long as I have, eight years, I don’t think they’re going to be paid $50 an hour.

“I think an attorney with as much experience as I have is going to be making a lot more than I am,” he said.

San Diego attorneys who specialize in civil law routinely charge clients more than $200 an hour, said lawyers familiar with billing rates.

As for the overall, six-figure totals, Tom Adler, 1990 president of the Criminal Defense Lawyers Club, a local bar group of about 70 attorneys, said it is essential to make realistic comparisons with deputy public defenders.

“Let’s say a county deputy is making $70,000 or $80,000,” he said. “And their cost of overhead is $20,000 a year, retirement benefits and stuff. They’re making $100,000 a year or over.

“Because an attorney, a (private) defense attorney is making the same thing, it just sounds a little bit more shocking because the overhead to keep that attorney going is factored in,” he said.

Attorneys with an active conflicts practice said that all the attention budget planners have devoted to how much the system costs may obscure a variety of related issues.

“They know they’re spending more money than they intended to spend,” said Barton C. Sheela III, president of the Criminal Defense Bar Assn., which has about 200 members. “They’ve got a problem, and they’d like to get a handle on that problem for the future. I think they need to do that.

“But it’s like they think, ‘If we make a decision right now and do something, we’ll be perceived as solving the problem.’ It may be that they’re moving too quick without good information.”

Sheela and others cited concern for the diminishing role of the private bar.

Before May, 1988, about 400 private attorneys--plus some civil service lawyers--were the entire system when it came to indigent defense in San Diego. That system, though, was widely criticized for its inefficiency, costliness and spotty quality.

That May, the county board voted to create the public defender’s office, which began operation in July, 1988, and now is a 180-lawyer office. The private bar, lobbying intensely for a continued role, was left with conflicts cases.

“I think the private bar in San Diego has been involved in (the system) for so long that they really care about what they’re doing and they’re a really cohesive group of dedicated people,” LeVine said.

“Not that the public defenders don’t care, but it also keeps the idea of small business people being able to have their own business, which is in line with the ideals we’re taught as you’re growing up, that you can have your own business, rather than having everything under a public agency,” he said.

Finally, attorneys said, they worried that a single-minded focus on the bottom line may be diverting attention from the quality of representation clients would receive from a new county agency. Pressure to process cases may result in an overwhelming caseload, which may lead to inferior lawyering, they said.

“People in juvenile court need quality representation, and I don’t think you’re going to get it from a county agency,” said Kandy Koliwer, a specialist at that court.

“Because I think the tendency (at a governmental agency) is to rubber-stamp, and the people don’t need that,” Koliwer said. “I’m talking about parents and children. They need someone who is independent and can do what they think is best for their client.”

That concern is just as strong in criminal cases, said defense attorney William F. Nimmo. “Money should be a concern,” Nimmo said. “But you’re not going to tell a neurosurgeon not to do something to save a man’s life just to save money. A lawyer has to do what he has to do to save that man’s life, too. In my case, I believe my client is innocent, and I’m going to do anything I can to save that man’s life.

“Why would we want to create a whole bunch of these house counsel institutions simply to save money? It has nothing to do with the quality of representation to people who are disadvantaged, homeless and indigent,” Nimmo said.

“People run around saying, ‘America’s great, it’s big, this and that,’ but the true measure of a society is how you treat people who are poor and indigent,” he said. “I think we’ve got enough money to take care of them right, especially in serious cases.”