That is, if my unsourced and unverified source is correct.
From the comments to an earlier post:
Regional Counsel cannot take any new criminal cases after 1/18, and they can't take any new civil cases after 1/31. They can't hire new staff or spend any $$ except to maintain existing caseload. The judge ruled from the bench late yesterday at the hearing, and the order hasn't even been signed yet.
January 10, 2008 8:04 AM
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
In other news...
...if you are following the posts below in order...
The 1st DCA issued an order today (I don't yet have a copy) that is summarized on its website as follows:
What this means is that Judge Davey in Leon County can rule on the motion to lift the stay (of his own, earlier order) that was described in posts below.
The 1st DCA issued an order today (I don't yet have a copy) that is summarized on its website as follows:
Appellants' emergency motion to require stay of all further proceedings in the trial court is denied. This disposition is without prejudice to the right of either party to seek review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(f) of the trial court's order on motion to vacate the automatic stay.
What this means is that Judge Davey in Leon County can rule on the motion to lift the stay (of his own, earlier order) that was described in posts below.
Chaos
Let me start with a bit more from todays email. From a dependencydefense.com reader:
First let me talk about that. I've read the legislation creating the Regional Counsel offices, and it deals with appointments of private counsel, at least when the Regional Counsel office itself has a conflict. Please read the post at this link if you have not already. This is what we've been doing in Orange County since January 2nd. We're just trying to comply with the law, nothing more nor less.
The email cited above seems to suggest that JAC is taking the position that no private counsel appointed by a dependency court judge will be compensated, period, once a RC begins operation. Again, by simply reading the law creating the RCs, that cannot be true. Really, read this post.
As I said to my emailer, this website has been far more interested in keeping good dependency defense from becoming irrevocably gutted in the Great State of Florida than in preserving the practices of dependency defense attorneys like your author. I mean that; it would be far easier to recover and rebuild the latter than the former.
To sum up. Do I have this straight? 1) The Regional Counsels are not to accept any more cases, and at the same time 2) no private counsel is to be compensated for accepting any cases.
I am certain that is not the way it will work out, particularly if y'all consider using the forms. But still. Chaos.
Hi Again:
What a mess!
Our Court Administrator sent an email to the Court's saying that the Regional Counsel was not to take ANY cases because Judge Davey lifted the Stay.
Wow.
To make it even more frustrating, it took me days to get the JAC to respond to my request for a review of our Order of Appointment after January 1st. Last week appointments were made but the Regional Counsel was not operational. I finally heard from Attorney Presnell yesterday. He said:
Dear [helpful DependecyDefense.com tipster]:
JAC has been informed by Philip Massa, Regional Counsel, Fourth District, that his office began accepting appointments to dependency cases in St. Lucie County (Fort Pierce) on January 7, 2008. Counsel appointed to a dependency case before that date are considered “properly” appointed and may be compensated.
Stephen
Stephen M. Presnell
General Counsel
Justice Administrative Commission
First let me talk about that. I've read the legislation creating the Regional Counsel offices, and it deals with appointments of private counsel, at least when the Regional Counsel office itself has a conflict. Please read the post at this link if you have not already. This is what we've been doing in Orange County since January 2nd. We're just trying to comply with the law, nothing more nor less.
The email cited above seems to suggest that JAC is taking the position that no private counsel appointed by a dependency court judge will be compensated, period, once a RC begins operation. Again, by simply reading the law creating the RCs, that cannot be true. Really, read this post.
As I said to my emailer, this website has been far more interested in keeping good dependency defense from becoming irrevocably gutted in the Great State of Florida than in preserving the practices of dependency defense attorneys like your author. I mean that; it would be far easier to recover and rebuild the latter than the former.
To sum up. Do I have this straight? 1) The Regional Counsels are not to accept any more cases, and at the same time 2) no private counsel is to be compensated for accepting any cases.
I am certain that is not the way it will work out, particularly if y'all consider using the forms. But still. Chaos.
Quo Warranto action certified to Florida Supreme Court
Judging by the web searches that are leading people to the blog today, this needs to be covered.
According to the Leon County Clerk's website, there was a hearing on FACDL's motion to dissolve the stay of Judge Davey's order declaring the Regional Counsel law (at least in part) unconstitutional (it's a long one, but you might find the exhibits interesting.). If you've not read Judge Davey's original order, you can click here.
The Respondents (The Governor and the Regional Counsels) moved for a continuance of the hearing on that motion (and also for a protective order regarding a subpoena of JAC) that was scheduled to be heard today, January 9, 2008. I do not know yet (I've been in court all day) if that hearing happened, but there was an order issued yesterday denying the motion to continue and denying the motion for a protective order.
Meanwhile, the 1st DCA has issued an order certifying the case to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance and requiring quick resolution. You can read that order if you scroll down to page 7 at this link.
And confusion continues to flourish. This from today's email:
I just received a telephone call from the Regional Counsel in our County. He began taking cases on Monday. He was informed today that they are NOT to take any additional cases or spend any money.
Now what??
That's interesting. Part of the Respondent's response relies upon the fact that the RCs have already established attorney-client relationships in many cases. I wonder who has told at least one of the RCs to stop taking cases, and if they are not to spend any money, what about the current employees?
According to the Leon County Clerk's website, there was a hearing on FACDL's motion to dissolve the stay of Judge Davey's order declaring the Regional Counsel law (at least in part) unconstitutional (it's a long one, but you might find the exhibits interesting.). If you've not read Judge Davey's original order, you can click here.
The Respondents (The Governor and the Regional Counsels) moved for a continuance of the hearing on that motion (and also for a protective order regarding a subpoena of JAC) that was scheduled to be heard today, January 9, 2008. I do not know yet (I've been in court all day) if that hearing happened, but there was an order issued yesterday denying the motion to continue and denying the motion for a protective order.
Meanwhile, the 1st DCA has issued an order certifying the case to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance and requiring quick resolution. You can read that order if you scroll down to page 7 at this link.
And confusion continues to flourish. This from today's email:
I just received a telephone call from the Regional Counsel in our County. He began taking cases on Monday. He was informed today that they are NOT to take any additional cases or spend any money.
Now what??
That's interesting. Part of the Respondent's response relies upon the fact that the RCs have already established attorney-client relationships in many cases. I wonder who has told at least one of the RCs to stop taking cases, and if they are not to spend any money, what about the current employees?
Monday, January 7, 2008
Up and running or not?
I've been surprised that no Florida news outlets that I've run across have written about the progress of the Regional Counsel offices since the official start date of January 2, 2008.
They are expending a budget as we speak. Public money is being spent. It is not in any way a bad idea to ask how the Regional Counsel offices, run by governor-appointed public officials, are doing. But there haven't been any news stories that I've found, save one.
First, lets revisit the email sent by the 5th Regional Counsel to employees after the ruling in the FACDL quo warranto action (it was first posted here):
So what are we to make of this lone news story about what is happening?:
My only point is that this is all confusing, and frustrating. We need to start with answering the question, has the lawsuit delayed the start date for the RCs to perform their responsibilities, or hasn't it? The courts need to know how to approach this in the near term.
Incidentally, and as usual, the story linked above does not mention dependency cases at all, only the criminal side.
They are expending a budget as we speak. Public money is being spent. It is not in any way a bad idea to ask how the Regional Counsel offices, run by governor-appointed public officials, are doing. But there haven't been any news stories that I've found, save one.
First, lets revisit the email sent by the 5th Regional Counsel to employees after the ruling in the FACDL quo warranto action (it was first posted here):
No matter waht you hear, a stay has been issued. In the 5th, 7th & 18th Circuits I have already spoken to the Chief Judges and we are proceeding as is and as planned. I am sure the same applies in the 9th until further notice. The enclosed email is from the State advising me to continue. Until there is another order we are proceeding as planned everywhere, sorry for the confusion but personally I can tell you that I think this will be resolved by the legislature if not by the Courts. While obviously I cannot gaurantee anything I believe we will be here for the long haul.
So what are we to make of this lone news story about what is happening?:
DAYTONA BEACH -- A new state-run office created to save public money while providing attorneys for poor people charged with crimes was supposed to be up and running already, but a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality and resistance by local governments to help pay has brought delays.
Jeffrey Deen, the Orlando-area lawyer who was appointed by Gov. Charlie Crist in August as criminal conflict and civil regional counsel for the local court district, said the process has been stalled by conflict but is working locally.
My only point is that this is all confusing, and frustrating. We need to start with answering the question, has the lawsuit delayed the start date for the RCs to perform their responsibilities, or hasn't it? The courts need to know how to approach this in the near term.
Incidentally, and as usual, the story linked above does not mention dependency cases at all, only the criminal side.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The first day
I'm happy to report that in Orange County we did have a Regional Counsel attorney attend shelter hearings, after being notified this morning to do so. I believe this is because courthouse staff has been proactive about trying to get information from the 5th Regional Counsel.
The Judge conducting shelter hearings today approved of my form (from the post below) and decided to use it. Thus a parent was spared from having to wait until later for counsel today.
I consider that a victory. Private (rotation or wheel) counsel will still get appointed when appropriate, though at a diminished rate than before, and parents will get lawyers at shelter, at least here in Orange County.
I've got no other reports except from Marion County, in which no Regional Counsel attorney showed up for shelter hearings (the Florida Bar News might want to rethink the headline "Regional Counsels Open for Business"). Reportedly the judge in Marion simply appointed private attorneys from the rotation list, which is risky in terms of those attorneys ever getting paid.
Either the Regional Counsel is going to perform its statutory duty or it is not. In Orange, it did; in Marion it did not. The offices are not "open for business" if they are not even appearing to represent dependency clients at shelter hearings.
How did it go in your county?
The Judge conducting shelter hearings today approved of my form (from the post below) and decided to use it. Thus a parent was spared from having to wait until later for counsel today.
I consider that a victory. Private (rotation or wheel) counsel will still get appointed when appropriate, though at a diminished rate than before, and parents will get lawyers at shelter, at least here in Orange County.
I've got no other reports except from Marion County, in which no Regional Counsel attorney showed up for shelter hearings (the Florida Bar News might want to rethink the headline "Regional Counsels Open for Business"). Reportedly the judge in Marion simply appointed private attorneys from the rotation list, which is risky in terms of those attorneys ever getting paid.
Either the Regional Counsel is going to perform its statutory duty or it is not. In Orange, it did; in Marion it did not. The offices are not "open for business" if they are not even appearing to represent dependency clients at shelter hearings.
How did it go in your county?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
How we will keep parents represented January 2
I've noticed a spike in readership as the day (tomorrow) that the Regional Counsels take over dependency defense, despite no new posts here for a while.
Relax, we have a plan.
Here are two scenarios for January 2d, 2008, and days to follow.
1. An attorney from your Regional Counsel Office is present in court to attend shelter hearings. That would be a good thing. I also don't expect it to happen, based upon what I hear. It would be great if readers could comment here, on the message board, or send me email to let us know if that happened in your county.
That attorney will represent one parent per case. Since Chapter 39 requires that parents have representation at all hearings, including shelter, there must be a mechanism for the Regional Counsel attorney to quickly and efficiently certify a conflict to the Clerk of Court so that private counsel can be appointed before or at the shelter hearing.
I know that locally there is no plan or mechanism to do that yet, and that is likely to be the case throughout the state, which will result in a whole lot of people being denied the right to counsel.
All that may be needed is to have the right form on hand, and DependencyDefense.com has stepped up and made one for you.
This link is a pdf version if you just want to review it.
This link is a MSWord file if you want to modify it for your circuit and use it.
And I do invite you to use it.
Scenario 2: No attorney from your Regional Counsel Office shows up at shelter hearings. This is a certainty in at least several counties. It violates both Chapter 39 and Chapter 27. Hopefully you have thought ahead and there will be rotation (wheel) attorneys on hand tomorrow and in the coming days at shelter hearings.
Chapter 27 still allows your Judge, on his or her own motion, to find a conflict and appoint counsel. We have created a form for that as well for you to use if you'd like and haven't come up with something better (if you have, feel free to share).
This link is to the pdf version
This link is to the MSWord file version that you can modify.
Scenario2a: What I can't plan for is what to do about the situation where the RC attorney doesn't show, the Judge certifies a conflict and gives all but one parent counsel. The best we may be able to do in the short term is to request a continuance (The statute allows for one in this instance up to 72 hours) and make noise to the Regional Counsel.
If they still don't have anyone prepared to represent that parent, the only thing that comes to mind so far is a writ of mandamus.
Note 1: Hey, you say, what's the fuss if the whole RC thing was declared unconstitutional? Answer: 1) the order was stayed; 2) we don't know what the end result will be yet; and 3) the order may not ever apply to dependency cases, although setting up this whole system just for that will give the legislature fits.
Note 2: You're welcome. Feel free to leave comments.
Relax, we have a plan.
Here are two scenarios for January 2d, 2008, and days to follow.
1. An attorney from your Regional Counsel Office is present in court to attend shelter hearings. That would be a good thing. I also don't expect it to happen, based upon what I hear. It would be great if readers could comment here, on the message board, or send me email to let us know if that happened in your county.
That attorney will represent one parent per case. Since Chapter 39 requires that parents have representation at all hearings, including shelter, there must be a mechanism for the Regional Counsel attorney to quickly and efficiently certify a conflict to the Clerk of Court so that private counsel can be appointed before or at the shelter hearing.
I know that locally there is no plan or mechanism to do that yet, and that is likely to be the case throughout the state, which will result in a whole lot of people being denied the right to counsel.
All that may be needed is to have the right form on hand, and DependencyDefense.com has stepped up and made one for you.
This link is a pdf version if you just want to review it.
This link is a MSWord file if you want to modify it for your circuit and use it.
And I do invite you to use it.
Scenario 2: No attorney from your Regional Counsel Office shows up at shelter hearings. This is a certainty in at least several counties. It violates both Chapter 39 and Chapter 27. Hopefully you have thought ahead and there will be rotation (wheel) attorneys on hand tomorrow and in the coming days at shelter hearings.
Chapter 27 still allows your Judge, on his or her own motion, to find a conflict and appoint counsel. We have created a form for that as well for you to use if you'd like and haven't come up with something better (if you have, feel free to share).
This link is to the pdf version
This link is to the MSWord file version that you can modify.
Scenario2a: What I can't plan for is what to do about the situation where the RC attorney doesn't show, the Judge certifies a conflict and gives all but one parent counsel. The best we may be able to do in the short term is to request a continuance (The statute allows for one in this instance up to 72 hours) and make noise to the Regional Counsel.
If they still don't have anyone prepared to represent that parent, the only thing that comes to mind so far is a writ of mandamus.
Note 1: Hey, you say, what's the fuss if the whole RC thing was declared unconstitutional? Answer: 1) the order was stayed; 2) we don't know what the end result will be yet; and 3) the order may not ever apply to dependency cases, although setting up this whole system just for that will give the legislature fits.
Note 2: You're welcome. Feel free to leave comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
