Here's an excerpt:
From the start, the system seemed troubled. The Legislature set a fiendishly short time frame to have the offices up and running -- the session ended in spring, and the offices were supposed to be up and running by October 2007. They weren't. In fact, there was much dispute over who was actually meant to pay the overhead costs of operating the new system -- the state budgeted $50 million for the new regional counsels (a sum that probably wouldn't have been enough to hire the skilled attorneys necessary to handle complex cases) but didn't include the roughly $20 million needed to provide office space, equipment, furniture and other essentials. Neither sum contemplates the increased risk of expensive appeals while the kinks are ironed out of the new system.
Compare the cost of the new system with the $90 million spent annually on conflict counsel under the court-appointed system and the notion that the state was getting a bargain becomes even more suspect. It makes more sense to return to the system that works.
And my favorite part:
The fees for conflict attorneys are usually capped at a rate below the market average for private attorneys.
I hope that the public and the legislature keep that in mind now that everyone seems to be agreeing before the Supreme Court that the services the Regional Counsels were meant to do are, in fact, quite valuable indeed.
1 comment:
It is nice to see that someone recognizes the hard work that contract attorneys have to put in to keep these conflict cases going. You need experienced people to do the contract work we do.
Post a Comment