We’ve already had a lengthy discussion over the reasonableness of $30-$40/hour court appointed rates back here. Now, there’s an interesting development relating to court appointed rates out of Alabama as reported in Lawyers for Poor Threaten Walkout, David Holden, Huntsville Times (2/22/05). According to the article, the state currently pays attorneys for indigent criminal clients $40/hour for work out of court and $60/hour for in court work. But on February 1, 2005 an opinion by Attorney General Troy King said that payment or the lawyers’ overhead expenses is illegal. Lawyers will not receive overhead expenses on requests made after the opinion issued. Now, according the article, Alabama defense attorneys are deciding whether to strike (in which case, they will have David Giacalone to contend with!).
I’ve already said that fees of $40-$60 an hour aren’t inherently unreasonable – and that lawyers should try to develop a diverse portfolio of work to wean themselves from reliance on lower fees. But I especially don’t agree with the idea of a separate overhead charge, if only because few attorneys track overhead closely enough to allow it to be allocated. I see nothing wrong with repaying expenses incurred for investigation fees or even legal research like LEXIS – but it should be done on a cost basis and not as an added hourly charge.
A comment from an Alabama lawyer. For the past several years Alabama judges have allowed attorneys to claim overhead as a legitimate expense. This has unfortunately caused some problems, a handful of attorneys have abused the system to rake in overhead that they did not justifiably need. The result was predictable – the state has now struck back. Most courts required an attorney to submit an affidavit that his expenses were $X; and thus his overhead rate was $X/2000. Anthing over $20/hour was looked at suspiciously. However, some courts simply allowed a blanket overhead charge of up to $35/hour. This resulted in lawyers abusing that system by simply setting up shop in those courts and not having any real overhead (well maybe a PO box). Then they attempted to claim all of their hours as “in court” and get effectively $95/hour. That was abuse, and I do not understand why the judges in that court allowed it to continue (they shall remain nameless).
However, the problem is that the Attorney General’s opinion is wrong. The legislature in no way intended to eliminate the overhead payment – and most attorneys did not abuse the system. Most attorneys properly included their overhead and got a little extra on top of their regular pay. In my experience most attorneys claimed less than $15/hour in overhead. This made practicing criminal law attractive to many qualified attorneys and has generally upgraded the professionalism of the Alabama Criminal Defense Bar. The AG’s wrongheadedness will only cost the state more in appeals due to ineffective counsel. The overhead needs to come back in. There are moves in the legislature right now to do just that. The $40/60 split, while certainly not the worst in the nation, is simply insufficient to attract quality legal representation for indigents. We can and should do better.
Sterling L. DeRamus