According to an article in today’s New York Law Journal, the higher fees that went into effect for assigned counsel in New York on January 5th are working as intended — attracting more so-called 18-B lawyers to take cases in Family Court. (“Higher Pay Help Boost Roster of 18-B Lawyers”, by Daniel Wise, 01-06-04) Last May, in one of ethicalEsq‘s very first posts, we praised the increase in New York’s rates to $75 in court and $60 out of court per hour, and opined:
No one’s going to get rich taking these cases, and the lack of court-appointed lawyers won’t be totally solved. But, managing partners might now be more willing to allow idealistic younger lawyers to serve as law guardians for children or appellate lawyers for criminal defendants. And, experienced attorneys, who are after all ethically obligated to help ensure legal services for all persons, might be inspired to take an appointed case or two. (See Rule 6 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility and Ethical Consideration 2-29 of the Model Code.) If more lawyers sign up to be on the panels of court-appointed attorneys, poor clients should get better representation and our courts should run more smoothly and quickly. That’s a pretty good use of taxpayers dollars. Even I have to admit it.
Of course, I hope the higher fees will not attract financially desperate (rather than professionally committed) lawyers, or cause assigned counsel — who are frequently faulted for giving insufficient service to such cases — to spend less time on each assigned case.
It’s a little ironic, that some 18-B lawyers are already complaining that there now are too many lawyers on the list. As the article notes: “‘There is no longer a shortage of attorneys, but of cases,’ one lawyer said, adding ‘we’re fighting for cases.'” Both ethicalEsq and haikuEsq are amused when lawyers act surprised — or feel persecuted — by the basic economic laws of supply and demand, price elasticity, etc.
- I hope the responsible public officials in Massachusetts will take a close look at the NYS results as they consider the appeal for higher fees from assigned counsel in that State.
To the extent that higher fees has increased the number of lawyers taking cases, I think that the quality of service will improve because of the larger pool. When I handled court appointed cases in DC Superior court from 1993-1996, there also seemed to be a surplus of cases; I don’t think that an attorney could get assigned more than 20 a year from the revolving attorney list. But from what I could tell, the quality of representation was very high (I don’t think I ever saw a lousy attorney performance in court and back then, I used to do quite a bit of observation so that I could learn what to do). And in the worst case scenario, the rotation meant that if an attorney was awful, well at least the chances of too many people getting assigned to that attorney were lower.
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — January 6, 2004 @ 11:22 pm
To the extent that higher fees has increased the number of lawyers taking cases, I think that the quality of service will improve because of the larger pool. When I handled court appointed cases in DC Superior court from 1993-1996, there also seemed to be a surplus of cases; I don’t think that an attorney could get assigned more than 20 a year from the revolving attorney list. But from what I could tell, the quality of representation was very high (I don’t think I ever saw a lousy attorney performance in court and back then, I used to do quite a bit of observation so that I could learn what to do). And in the worst case scenario, the rotation meant that if an attorney was awful, well at least the chances of too many people getting assigned to that attorney were lower.
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — January 6, 2004 @ 11:22 pm