- 346 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees.

Kristine Roberts, appellee, v. County of 

Washington, Nebraska, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed October 2, 2020. Nos. S-19-378, S-19-533, S-19-932.

1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. An appellate court independently reviews questions of law 

decided by the lower court.

2. Judgments: Statutes: Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and 

Error. For purposes of construction, Nebraska Supreme Court rules 

are treated like statutes, and therefore an appellate court independently 

reviews the conclusion of a lower court.

3. Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. When attorney fees are authorized, 

the trial court exercises its discretion in setting the amount of the 

fee, which ruling an appellate court will not disturb absent an abuse 

of discretion.

4. Courts: Statutes: Appeal and Error. The right of appeal in Nebraska 

is purely statutory, and courts have no power to allow an appeal when it 

is not authorized by statute.

5. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Supp. 

2019) authorizes appeals from four types of final orders: (1) those 

affecting a substantial right in an action that, in effect, determines the 

action and prevents a judgment; (2) those affecting a substantial right 

made during a special proceeding; (3) those affecting a substantial right 

made on summary application in an action after judgment is rendered; 

and (4) those denying a motion for summary judgment when such 

motion is based on the assertion of sovereign immunity or the immunity 

of a government official.

6. Juvenile Courts: Attorney Fees: Final Orders. Orders fixing fees 

for court-appointed counsel in juvenile cases under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-273 (Reissue 2016) fall into the second category of final order 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

12/11/2020 09:09 AM CST
- 347 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Supp. 2019), because they are made in 

a special proceeding and affect a substantial right.

7. Actions: Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A “special proceeding” 

occurs where the law confers a right and authorizes a special application 

to a court to enforce the right. A special proceeding includes every special statutory remedy that is not in itself an action, and a proceeding may 

be special, even if the proceeding is connected with a pending action.

8. Juvenile Courts: Attorney Fees: Final Orders. Fee applications under 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-273 (Reissue 2016) meet the definition of a special proceeding.

9. Attorney Fees: Statutes: Final Orders: Counties. When courtappointed counsel is authorized by statute to apply to the appointing 

court to fix reasonable fees for legal services rendered, an order fixing 

such fees is a final, appealable order from which either appointed counsel or the county board responsible for payment may appeal.

10. Statutes: Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. When 

construing both statutes and Nebraska Supreme Court rules, an appellate 

court applies familiar rules of statutory interpretation. The language is 

to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will 

not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of words which 

are plain, direct, and unambiguous. It is not within the province of the 

courts to read meaning into a statute that is not there or to read anything 

direct and plain out of a statute.

11. Juvenile Courts: Attorney Fees: Rules of the Supreme Court. Neither 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-273 (Reissue 2016) nor Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1407 

requires that the county must be notified when a fee application is filed 

by court-appointed counsel, nor does either require that an evidentiary 

hearing be routinely held on such an application.

12. Attorney Fees: Statutes: Evidence. When a statute requires the court 

to fix reasonable fees for appointed counsel, the trial court has a duty to 

determine whether the requested fees are in fact reasonable, even if there 

is no objection to the application or no contrary evidence presented.

13. Juvenile Courts: Attorney Fees. Once a juvenile court appoints counsel in a juvenile proceeding, it has a duty under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-273 (Reissue 2016) to fix reasonable fees for the necessary legal 

services performed.

14. Attorney Fees. When fixing reasonable fees, a court considers several 

factors: the nature of the litigation, the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised, the skill required to properly 

conduct the case, the responsibility assumed, the care and diligence 

exhibited, the result of the suit, the character and standing of the attorney, and the customary charges of the bar for similar services.
- 348 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

15. Attorney Fees: Counties: Appeal and Error. In the absence of an 

appeal, a court’s order fixing court-appointed counsel fees is conclusive 

upon both appointed counsel and the county as to the amount allowed.

16. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when 

the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly 

depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters submitted for disposition.

17. Courts: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. While both trial courts and 

appellate courts are regarded as experts on the value of legal services, a 

trial court ordinarily has a better opportunity for practically appraising 

the situation, and an appellate court will interfere only to correct a patent 

injustice, where the allowance is clearly excessive, or insufficient.

18. Juvenile Courts: Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. When a juvenile 

case is appealed, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-273 (Reissue 2016) requires 

appointed counsel to apply to the juvenile court, not the appellate court, 

for payment of services performed on appeal.

Appeals from the County Court for Washington County: C. 

Matthew Samuelson, Judge. Affirmed.

M. Scott Vander Schaaf, Washington County Attorney, and 

Desirae M. Solomon for appellant.

Kristine Roberts, of Roberts Law Office, L.L.C., for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Stacy, J.

In these consolidated appeals, the county attorney for 

Washington County, Nebraska, challenges a series of orders 

fixing fees for court-appointed counsel in a juvenile proceeding. This opinion clarifies the statutory framework for appealing such orders and explains how the appeal should be styled. 

It then addresses the procedural and evidentiary challenges 

raised by the county, including its contentions that (1) the 

county is entitled by law to notice and an evidentiary hearing 

whenever a fee application is filed, (2) fee applications must 

be supported by evidence of the client’s continued indigency, 

(3) courts may not allow fees for defending objections to a 
- 349 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

fee application, and (4) only an appellate court may award fees 

for services performed on appeal.

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the fee orders 

entered by the juvenile court.

I. BACKGROUND

1. Procedural History of 

Juvenile Proceedings

In March 2016, the State filed a petition in the county court 

for Washington County alleging the minor children of Kilynn 

K. were within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) 

(Supp. 2015) due to the faults and habits of Kilynn. Pursuant 

to an ex parte order, the children were removed from Kilynn’s 

home, which was alleged to be unsanitary and bug infested.

Early in the case, the county court, sitting as a juvenile 

court, granted Kilynn’s request for court-appointed counsel and 

appointed attorney Kristina Roberts. 1 Roberts has represented 

Kilynn during all phases of this juvenile proceeding.

Eventually, the children were adjudicated under 

§ 43-247(3)(a). The court set a permanency goal of reunification, and Kilynn was ordered to work with family support 

services, complete a psychological evaluation, attend therapy, 

attend parenting classes, learn how to clean and organize the 

home, and eradicate insects from the home. At regular review 

hearings throughout 2017, the court found that Kilynn was 

making progress and that supervised visits were going well. 

However, in the spring of 2018, Kilynn started to backslide, 

and in June 2018, the State moved to terminate her parental rights.

Trial on the motion to terminate was held in November 

2018. The trial lasted 4 full days; more than 20 witnesses testified, and approximately 90 exhibits were offered. At the conclusion of trial, the juvenile court denied the State’s motion, 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(1) (Reissue 2016) (authorizing juvenile 

court to appoint counsel to represent parent in adjudication and termination 

proceeding if parent unable to afford attorney).
- 350 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

finding it had not shown that Kilynn was unfit or that terminating her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. 

The State timely appealed that ruling, and the Nebraska Court 

of Appeals affirmed. 2

2. Orders Compensating Court-Appointed Counsel

(a) Fee Applications From 2016 

Through 2018

During the first few years of this juvenile proceeding, 

Roberts filed an application in the county court for Washington 

County every 3 to 4 months seeking payment for past legal 

services at the approved hourly rate, which at the time was $75 

per hour. There were no objections to any of these fee applications. The court routinely allowed Roberts’ fee applications 

without a hearing, and no appeals were taken from any of the 

fee orders during this time period.

(b) February 2019 Fee Application

On February 13, 2019, Roberts filed a verified fee application seeking payment of $12,103.80 for 151 hours of services 

rendered from August 30, 2018, through February 6, 2019. The 

application included time billed by Roberts in preparing for and 

defending the 4-day termination trial. The fee application was 

supported by Roberts’ affidavit, which included a detailed billing statement. Roberts served a copy of the February 2019 fee 

application, along with a notice of hearing, on the Washington 

County Attorney.

Washington County filed a written objection to Roberts’ fee 

application, alleging Roberts’ affidavit contained hearsay and 

lacked necessary foundation. In a subsequently filed brief, the 

county also challenged evidence of Kilynn’s indigency and 

argued that Roberts’ fee application should be denied because 

prior fee orders had sufficiently compensated Roberts for 

her services.

2 In re Interest of A.M. & S.K.S., No. A-19-247, 2019 WL 5561409 (Neb. 

App. Oct. 29, 2019) (selected for posting to court website).
- 351 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

At the hearing, Roberts offered a copy of her affidavit and 

the court received it without objection. Roberts also called a 

local attorney, who testified that for the past 30 years, a portion 

of his general law practice involved representing parents in 

termination proceedings. He described parental rights termination cases as the “capital punishment of all family law cases.” 

When privately retained, he billed his time for such work at 

$200 an hour. He also accepted juvenile court appointments 

despite the lower hourly rate, because he understood the court 

“wants experienced trial attorneys to be available on the court 

list.” The attorney testified that trial preparation time varies 

from case to case, but that, generally, an attorney prepares 

approximately 2 hours for each hour spent in trial. He testified 

that other attorneys in the area often consult him about handling parental rights termination cases and that Roberts consulted him several times during the pendency of this case but 

did not bill the county for any of that time. The attorney was 

familiar with the history of this juvenile case and had reviewed 

Roberts’ affidavit and her billing statement. When asked his 

opinion on whether Roberts’ fees and expenses were fair and 

reasonable, he testified that if anything, Roberts underbilled for 

the time she spent defending Kilynn.

Washington County offered no evidence at the hearing. It 

instead urged the court to deny Roberts’ February 2019 fee 

application in its entirety, based on the arguments it raised in 

its objection and brief. Summarized, it was the county’s primary position that Roberts’ past fee awards were sufficient to 

compensate her for all of her legal services in the case, even if 

it meant she received no payment for the time billed defending 

Kilynn in the parental rights termination trial.

On March 28, 2019, the court entered an order overruling 

Washington County’s objection to Roberts’ February 2019 fee 

application. The court found Roberts’ requested fees were fair 

and reasonable, and it allowed fees in the sum of $12,103.80. 

The county timely appealed from that order, and the appeal 

was docketed as case No. A-19-378.
- 352 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

(c) April 2019 Fee Application

Roberts filed another verified fee application on April 25, 

2019, seeking payment of $2,347.50 for approximately 31 

hours of legal services performed from February 11 to April 

25, 2019. This application included 3 hours billed in connection with preparing for and attending the evidentiary hearing on 

Washington County’s objection to the February 2019 fee application and 1.2 hours of work in connection with the county’s 

direct appeal of the decision declining to terminate Kilynn’s 

parental rights. Roberts’ April 2019 fee application was supported by her own affidavit and a detailed billing invoice. 

Roberts served the Washington County Attorney with a copy of 

the April 2019 fee application and a notice of hearing.

The county did not file an objection to the April 2019 fee 

application, but it did appear at the scheduled hearing. At the 

hearing, Roberts offered a copy of her affidavit and the court 

received it over the State’s objections. Washington County 

offered no evidence, but made an oral objection to the fee 

application, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction over the 

matter, because the county had appealed some of the juvenile 

court’s recent orders.

The juvenile court rejected the county’s jurisdictional argument and, speaking from the bench, found that Roberts had 

been properly appointed and that “[t]here were no irregularities” in her fee request. The county took exception to the latter finding and asked to be heard, arguing that Roberts’ April 

2019 fee application was irregular because some of the billed 

time pertained to work performed in defending the county’s 

appeals. It was the county’s position that Roberts could not 

ask the juvenile court to compensate her for work performed 

in the appellate court. According to the county, if Roberts 

wanted to be paid for work performed on appeal, she would 

need to “re-apply to the Court of Appeals to get separately 

appointed for the purposes of the appeal,” and then “the Court 

of Appeals takes up that application for attorney fees when that 

case closes.”
- 353 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

The county also argued that Roberts’ fee request was irregular because she was seeking compensation for time spent 

defending the county’s objection to her February 2019 fee 

application. The county argued that such time “ha[d] nothing 

to do with” representing Kilynn in the juvenile proceeding 

and, thus, was not compensable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-273 

(Reissue 2016). When the court asked what Roberts should 

have done when the county objected to her fee application, 

the county conceded it was appropriate for Roberts to prepare 

for and appear at the hearing on the county’s objection. But 

it maintained Roberts was not entitled to be compensated for 

that time.

The juvenile court ruled from the bench and allowed 

Roberts’ fee request after making a minor deduction. Later that 

same day, the court entered an order overruling the county’s 

objection, finding that Roberts’ fees were fair and reasonable, 

and allowing fees in the sum of $2,325. The county timely 

appealed from that order, and the appeal was docketed as case 

No. A-19-533.

(d) July 2019 Fee Application

On July 12, 2019, Roberts filed a verified application seeking fees in the amount of $2,991.85 for nearly 40 hours of legal 

services performed from April 26 through July 1, 2019. This 

application included approximately 19 hours of time billed for 

activities related to defending Kilynn in the ongoing juvenile 

court proceedings, approximately 1 hour billed for defending 

the county’s objection to Roberts’ April 2019 fee application, 

and approximately 20 hours billed for reviewing, researching, 

and drafting briefs in the various appeals taken by the county. 

Roberts’ July 2019 fee application was accompanied by a 

detailed billing statement, but unlike her prior two applications, 

it contained no certificate of service and no notice of hearing. 

Washington County contends it was never served with a copy 

of this fee application.

Without setting the matter for hearing, the court entered an 

order on August 26, 2019, allowing Roberts’ July 2019 fee 
- 354 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

application in the amount of $ 2,991.85. Washington County 

timely appealed from that order, and the appeal was docketed 

as case No. A-19-932.

We moved all three appeals to our docket on our own motion 

and consolidated them for purposes of this opinion.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

In its first appeal, Washington County assigns, restated, 

that the juvenile court’s February 2019 fee order was erroneous, because Roberts offered no evidence that Kilynn was still 

unable to afford a lawyer and because Roberts had already 

been adequately compensated by prior fee orders.

In its second appeal, Washington County assigns that the 

April 2019 fee order was erroneous for the same reasons raised 

in the first appeal and, in addition, assigns that the allowed 

fees were excessive because Roberts was compensated for time 

spent defending the county’s objection to her February 2019 

fee application.

In its third appeal, Washington County assigns that the July 

2019 fee order was erroneous for the same reasons raised in the 

first and second appeals and, in addition, assigns that the order 

was erroneous because fees were allowed without providing 

Washington County notice or an opportunity to be heard.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 An 

appellate court independently reviews questions of law decided 

by the lower court. 4

[2] For purposes of construction, Nebraska Supreme Court 

rules are treated like statutes, 5 and therefore an appellate court 

independently reviews the conclusion of a lower court. 6

3 State v. Brye, 304 Neb. 498, 935 N.W.2d 438 (2019).

4 Id.

5 Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102, 917 N.W.2d 467 (2018).

6 See Sellers v. Reefer Systems, 305 Neb. 868, 943 N.W.2d 275 (2020).
- 355 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

[3] When attorney fees are authorized, the trial court exercises 

its discretion in setting the amount of the fee, which ruling an 

appellate court will not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. 7

IV. ANALYSIS

When the juvenile case was filed in 2016, Kilynn advised the 

court she could not afford to hire a lawyer and she requested 

court-appointed counsel. 8 The court appointed Roberts, and 

Washington County does not, in these appeals, challenge the 

basis for that appointment. Instead, the county challenges the 

court’s 2019 orders fixing Roberts’ attorney fees.

The parties’ appellate briefing demonstrates considerable 

confusion regarding the proper procedure under Nebraska law 

for requesting and fixing fees for court-appointed counsel in 

juvenile proceedings. We therefore begin by setting out the 

statutes and uniform court rules governing that procedure.

1. Statutes and Court Rules Governing 

Payment of Court-Appointed Counsel

Section 43-273 provides in relevant part that counsel 

appointed under the juvenile code

shall apply to the court before which the proceedings 

were had for fees for services performed. The court upon 

hearing the application shall fix reasonable fees. The 

county board of the county wherein the proceedings were 

had shall allow the account, bill, or claim presented by 

any attorney . . . in the amount determined by the court. 

No such account, bill, or claim shall be allowed by the 

county board until the amount thereof shall have been 

determined by the court.

In addition to the statutory process outlined in § 43-273, 

the Supreme Court has adopted a uniform court rule which 

applies in all county courts and governs the content and filing 

7 See State v. Rice, 295 Neb. 241, 888 N.W.2d 159 (2016).

8 See § 43-279.01(1).
- 356 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

of fee applications in both criminal and juvenile matters. 9

That uniform court rule provides:

Before the claim of any attorney appointed by the court 

is allowed in criminal and juvenile matters, such attorney 

shall make a written application for fees, positively verified, stating time and expenses in the case. Counsel shall 

also state in the application that counsel has not received 

and has no contract for the payment of any compensation 

by such defendant or anyone in the defendant’s behalf, 

or, if counsel has received any fee or has a contract for 

the payment of same, shall disclose the same fully so that 

the proper credit may be taken on counsel’s application. 

The application shall be filed with the clerk. If a hearing 

is required, the time and date of hearing shall be set by 

court order. 10

A different uniform court rule governs the rate of compensation 

for court-appointed counsel and provides in relevant part:

(E) Compensation for Court-Appointed Attorneys.

(1) An attorney appointed by a court shall be paid at 

the hourly rate established by the court.

(2) Generally, no distinction should be made between 

rates for services performed in and outside of court, 

and the same rate should be paid for any time the attorney spends traveling in fulfilling his or her professional 

obligations. 11

Similar uniform court rules apply to court-appointed counsel in 

separate juvenile courts. 12

Finally, in addition to the statute and uniform court rules 

just referenced, some judicial districts have adopted local 

court rules, not inconsistent with statute or Supreme Court 

9 Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1407.

10 Id.

11 Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1470(E) (rev. 2017).

12 See Neb. Ct. R. §§ 6-1704 (rev. 2014) and 1706(B)(3) and (E) (rev. 2017).
- 357 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

rules, 13 establishing additional procedures for paying courtappointed counsel in that district. 14 However, during the relevant time period, the county court judges in the Sixth Judicial 

District, which includes Washington County, had no local 

court rule governing the procedure for paying court-appointed 

counsel.

We note the appellate briefing in this case refers to a 

“Washington County Attorney Fee Policy” 15 which purportedly 

requires court-appointed counsel to present all fee applications 

to the county attorney for “approval or objection” 16 before the 

court rules on the application. But no such policy was included 

in our record, and no local court rule reflecting such a policy 

has been adopted by the judges of that district or approved 

by the Supreme Court. We therefore do not consider, and 

express no opinion regarding, any informal procedures or policies in Washington County pertaining to compensating courtappointed counsel.

2. Right to Appeal From 

Order Allowing Fees

In a juvenile case, as in any other appeal, before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an 

13 See, Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1448 (providing each county court by majority 

of its judges may adopt local rules not inconsistent with uniform court 

rules or state statute); Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1501 (providing each district court 

by majority of its judges may adopt local rules concerning matters not 

covered by uniform district court rules which are not inconsistent with 

statute or any Supreme Court directive).

14 See, e.g., Rules of Dist. Ct. of First Jud. Dist. 1-19 (rev. 2005); Rules of 

Dist. Ct. of Third Jud. Dist. 3-14 (rev. 2013); Rules of Dist. Ct. of Fifth 

Jud. Dist. 5-17 (rev. 2016); Rules of Dist. Ct. of Sixth Jud. Dist. 6-8 (rev. 

2010); Rules of Dist. Ct. of 10th Jud. Dist. 10-23 (rev. 2010); Rules of 

Dist. Ct. of 11th Jud. Dist. 11-6 (rev. 2002). See, also, Rules of Sep. Juv. 

Ct. of Douglas Cty. 11.4 and 11.6 (rev. 2014); Rules of Sep. Juv. Ct. of 

Lancaster Cty. VI(G) (rev. 2018).

15 Brief for appellee in case No. S-19-932 at 9.

16 Id.
- 358 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over 

the matter before it. 17 Washington County filed a timely notice 

of appeal within 30 days after the entry of each of the fee 

orders it seeks to challenge, but the threshold jurisdictional 

question is whether those orders are appealable.

The right to appeal from orders in juvenile court is governed 

by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,106.01(1) (Reissue 2016). That statute permits authorized parties to appeal from “[a]ny final order 

or judgment” entered by a juvenile court. 18 The instant appeals 

were filed by the county attorney, who is among those authorized by § 43-2,106.01 to take an appeal. Setting aside for now 

the question of whether the county attorney has styled these 

appeals to correctly reflect the proper parties, the pertinent 

jurisdictional question is one we have not yet addressed: Is an 

order ruling on a fee application of court-appointed counsel 

in a juvenile matter a final, appealable order? Our opinions 

addressing appeals of fee awards in other appointed-counsel 

contexts provide some guidance. 19

In the 1987 case of In re Claim of Rehm and Faesser

(Rehm), 20 court-appointed counsel in a criminal case appealed 

from a fee order, claiming the fees were inadequate to compensate counsel for the work performed. We recognized that 

some of our earlier cases had been inconsistent regarding both 

the right to appeal, and the procedure for appealing, from fee 

awards to appointed counsel in criminal cases. Rehm expressly 

disapproved of our prior cases on the issue and announced the 

following rule regarding the appealability of fee orders and the 

manner in which such appeals should be styled:

17 In re Interest of Paxton H., 300 Neb. 446, 915 N.W.2d 45 (2018).

18 § 43-2,106.01(1). See § 43-2,106.01(2)(a) through (d).

19 See, e.g., White v. White, 296 Neb. 772, 896 N.W.2d 600 (2017); Rice, 

supra note 7; White v. White, 293 Neb. 439, 884 N.W.2d 1 (2016); In re 

Claim of Rehm and Faesser, 226 Neb. 107, 410 N.W.2d 92 (1987).

20 Rehm, supra note 19.
- 359 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

We hold, therefore, that either appointed counsel or the 

county involved may appeal to this court from an order 

determining the amount of fees and expenses allowed 

appointed counsel under § 29-1804.12. Such an appeal is 

a proceeding separate from the criminal case. It should 

be docketed separately and disposed of without regard 

to the result of any appeal in the criminal case itself. In 

the absence of an appeal, the order of the district court is 

conclusive upon both appointed counsel and the county as 

to the amount allowed. 21

Rehm acknowledged that the county was not a party to 

the criminal case “in the usual sense,” 22 because the county 

attorney was prosecuting the matter on behalf of the State, not 

the county. But Rehm reasoned that because any order awarding fees to court-appointed counsel would be presented to the 

county for payment, the county attorney could be expected to 

“make whatever showing is necessary” 23 to ensure a proper 

decision regarding fees. And Rehm expressly found that “both 

appointed counsel and the county must be afforded a right of 

[appellate review] in the event either is dissatisfied with the 

order of the district court.” 24

We have applied the reasoning from Rehm to appeals from 

fee awards to appointed counsel in both postconviction proceedings 25 and domestic relations proceedings. 26 We see no 

principled reason to depart from the Rehm reasoning in appeals 

from fee awards to appointed counsel in juvenile proceedings. 

We do, however, take this opportunity to explain the statutory 

basis for our conclusion in Rehm that such orders are final 

and appealable.

21 Id. at 113-14, 410 N.W.2d at 96.

22 Id. at 113, 410 N.W.2d at 96.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Rice, supra note 7.

26 White, supra note 19 (2017); White, supra note 19 (2016).
- 360 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

(a) Order Fixing Fees Under 

§ 43-273 Is Final Order

[4-6] The right of appeal in Nebraska is purely statutory, 

and courts have no power to allow an appeal when it is not 

authorized by statute. 27 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Supp. 2019) 

authorizes appeals from four types of final orders: (1) those 

affecting a substantial right in an action that, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment; (2) those affecting 

a substantial right made during a special proceeding; (3) those 

affecting a substantial right made on summary application in 

an action after judgment is rendered; and (4) those denying 

a motion for summary judgment when such motion is based 

on the assertion of sovereign immunity or the immunity of a 

government official. 28 As we explain below, orders fixing fees 

for court-appointed counsel in juvenile cases under § 43-273 

fall into the second category of final order under § 25-1902, 

because they are made in a special proceeding and affect a 

substantial right.

[7] A “special proceeding” occurs where the law confers a 

right and authorizes a special application to a court to enforce 

the right. 29 A special proceeding includes every special statutory remedy that is not in itself an action, 30 and “a proceeding 

may be special, even if the proceeding is connected with a 

pending action.” 31 Section 43-273 authorizes appointed counsel to apply to the appointing court for payment of earned 

fees, and once the appointing court fixes a reasonable fee, 

the county board is required to allow the claim in the amount 

determined by the court.

[8] Fee applications under § 43-273 meet the definition of a 

special proceeding. The law authorizes the fee application so 

27 Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458, 894 N.W.2d 296 (2017).

28 See State v. Kelley, 305 Neb. 409, 940 N.W.2d 568 (2020).

29 See State v. Jacques, 253 Neb. 247, 570 N.W.2d 331 (1997).

30 In re Estate of Abbott-Ochsner, 299 Neb. 596, 910 N.W.2d 504 (2018).

31 Jacques, supra note 29, 253 Neb. at 253, 570 N.W.2d at 336.
- 361 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

that appointed counsel can enforce the right to be compensated 

for services rendered, and the application is not itself an action 

or a step in an action. Moreover, while we did not expressly 

use final order terminology in Rehm, our analysis recognized 

that orders determining court-appointed attorney fees affect a 

substantial right of both the lawyer seeking payment of earned 

fees and the county responsible for paying those fees. 32 And 

while an order fixing fees does not result in a judgment, it “is 

conclusive upon both appointed counsel and the county as to 

the amount allowed.” 33

[9] We therefore hold that when court-appointed counsel 

is authorized by statute to apply to the appointing court to 

fix reasonable fees for legal services rendered, an order fixing such fees is a final, appealable order from which either 

appointed counsel or the county board responsible for payment 

may appeal.

(b) Proper Parties in Appeal From 

Final Order Fixing Fees

The county attorney has styled these appeals as though the 

State of Nebraska is the appellant and Kilynn is the appellee. 

This is not accurate, because neither the State nor Kilynn was 

involved in the special proceeding to fix court-appointed counsel’s fees. Rather, these consolidated appeals were brought by 

the county attorney for Washington County on behalf of the 

county board to challenge the fee orders. And it is Roberts, 

not Kilynn, who was allowed the fees and is defending the fee 

orders on appeal.

We therefore modify the caption of these consolidated 

appeals to reflect that Washington County is the appellant 

and that Roberts is the appellee. Consistent with the manner in which Rehm was styled, the proper caption for these 

appeals is as follows: In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney 

32 See Rehm, supra note 19.

33 Id. at 114, 410 N.W.2d at 96.
- 362 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

Fees. Kristine Roberts, Appellee, v. County of Washington, 

Nebraska, Appellant.

3. Arguments on Appeal

Regarding the merits of these consolidated appeals, 

Washington County’s assignments of error fall generally into 

one of three categories: (1) claims that the juvenile court 

erred in the procedure followed when fixing fees, (2) claims 

that the evidence was insufficient to support the fee orders, 

and (3) claims that the amount of fees allowed was excessive. 

We address these assignments collectively where appropriate, 

and we begin with the county’s procedural claim that it was 

entitled to notice and an evidentiary hearing on the July 2019 

fee application.

(a) Notice and Hearing

In its third appeal, Washington County argues the August 

2019 fee order should be vacated because it was entered 

without providing notice to the county that the July 2019 fee 

application had been filed and without holding an evidentiary 

hearing on the application. The county generally frames this as 

a constitutional due process violation, arguing, “The juvenile 

court in this case violated the due process of the county by 

ordering fees without [a] hearing, notice or evidence.” 34

We dispense quickly with the county’s constitutional due 

process argument, because the law is well settled that the 

county has no such constitutional right. 35 We instead focus 

34 Supplemental brief for appellant in case No. S-19-932 at 4.

35 See, White, supra note 19 (2016) (holding county has no constitutional 

right to due process); Schropp Indus. v. Washington Cty. Atty.’s Ofc., 

281 Neb. 152, 164, 794 N.W.2d 685, 696 (2011) (holding “Washington 

County has no constitutional right to due process that the court could have 

violated”); City of Lincoln v. Central Platte NRD, 263 Neb. 141, 146, 

638 N.W.2d 839, 844 (2002) (refusing to consider county’s constitutional 

due process arguments, because “[a] county, as a creature and political 

subdivision of the State, is neither a natural nor an artificial person”).
- 363 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

our analysis on whether § 43-273, or any of the applicable 

court rules, entitles the county to notice that a fee application 

has been filed, or requires that an evidentiary hearing be held 

before the court fixes reasonable fees.

[10] When construing both statutes and Supreme Court 

rules, we apply familiar rules of statutory interpretation. 36 The 

language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an 

appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the 

meaning of words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. 37

It is not within the province of the courts to read meaning into 

a statute that is not there or to read anything direct and plain 

out of a statute. 38

Washington County directs us to nothing in the plain language of either § 43-273 or the applicable court rules that 

requires notifying the county or holding an evidentiary hearing when a fee application is filed by court-appointed counsel. 

Instead, Washington County argues we should construe the 

following statutory language to require evidentiary hearings on 

all fee applications: “The court upon hearing the application 

shall fix reasonable fees.” 39 The county suggests this language 

“indicates that there should be a hearing conducted” 40 on every 

fee application. We disagree.

Section 43-273 requires the court to fix reasonable fees 

“upon hearing the application,” but we understand that phrase 

to refer broadly to the court’s consideration of the fee application, not as a mandate to hold an evidentiary hearing before 

fixing fees. When the Legislature wants to mandate an evidentiary hearing before allowing a ruling, it knows how to 

36 See Hotz, supra note 5 (explaining for purposes of construction, Supreme 

Court rules treated like statutes).

37 See State v. Wal, 302 Neb. 308, 923 N.W.2d 367 (2019).

38 Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605, 935 N.W.2d 754 (2019).

39 § 43-273.

40 Brief for appellant in case No. S-19-932 at 10.
- 364 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

do so. 41 Rather than mandating a hearing, § 43-273 describes 

an informal fee application process which is administrative 

rather than adversarial. The court rule regarding application for 

fees accommodates that informal statutory procedure, while 

also recognizing that judges have discretion to set a hearing 

on a fee application if they determine one is required. 42 The 

court rule also adds several administrative requirements to the 

statutory fee application process, including that the application 

must be written, must be positively verified by counsel, must 

include specific information, and must be filed with the clerk. 43

These requirements ensure both that a written record exists 

of any fee application that is allowed and that the court has 

positively verified information upon which to rely when fixing reasonable fees. In other words, the court rule is designed 

to reduce the need for courts to set an evidentiary hearing on 

fee applications, not to mandate hearings in every case, as the 

county contends.

[11] We hold as a matter of law that neither § 43-273 nor 

court rule § 6-1407 requires that the county must be notified 

when a fee application is filed by court-appointed counsel, nor 

does either require that an evidentiary hearing be routinely 

held on such an application. And while it is true that several 

courts have adopted local rules requiring fee applications to 

be styled as motions and served on the county attorney, 44 the 

county court for Washington County had no local court rule 

41 See, e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702 (Reissue 2016); Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 29-3703 (Reissue 2016); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 2016); 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-246.02 (Cum. Supp. 2018).

42 See § 6-1407 (“[i]f a hearing is required, the time and date of hearing shall 

be set by court order”).

43 See id.

44 See, e.g., Rules of Dist. Ct. of First Jud. Dist. 1-19; Rules of Dist. Ct. of 

Third Jud. Dist. 3-14; Rules of Dist. Ct. of Fifth Jud. Dist. 5-17; Rules 

of Dist. Ct. of Sixth Jud. Dist. 6-8; Rules of Dist. Ct. of 10th Jud. Dist. 

10-23.
- 365 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

requiring either notice to the county or an evidentiary hearing 

when appointed counsel files a fee application. We therefore 

find no merit to the county’s claim that the juvenile court erred 

in allowing the July 2019 fee application without first providing the county with notice and a hearing.

We are aware the local practice in some jurisdictions has 

long been to provide the county with notice when fee applications are filed and to set such matters for hearing. Our opinion 

today does not condemn such practices, whether formalized 

through the adoption of local court rules or not. Indeed, 

appointed counsel in this case provided notice to the county 

of her February 2019 and April 2019 fee applications, and 

counsel set both for hearing. But the question before us is not 

whether it is the common practice, or even the best practice, 

to provide notice to the county and set fee applications for 

hearing. Rather, the question presented is whether notice and a 

hearing are required by the applicable statutes and court rules. 

They are not, and the county’s arguments to the contrary are 

without merit.

(b) Sufficiency of Evidence

In all three appeals, Washington County assigns the juvenile 

court erred in allowing fees without first receiving evidence 

that Kilynn remained unable to afford an attorney at the time of 

the fee application. In making this argument, the county does 

not challenge the initial appointment of counsel for Kilynn, 

nor does it contend that after counsel was appointed, Kilynn 

became able to afford counsel. Instead, it is the county’s position that each time Roberts applied for fees under § 43-273, 

she had the burden to prove that Kilynn was still unable to 

afford to hire private counsel. The county is incorrect.

The evidentiary requirements governing Roberts’ fee application are set out in court rule § 6-1407. That rule requires 

that before appointed counsel’s fees are allowed in a criminal 

or juvenile matter, counsel must file a written fee application 

with the clerk which is positively verified and which states 
- 366 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

counsel’s time and expenses in the case. 45 It also requires the 

application must either state that counsel “has not received 

and has no contract for the payment of any compensation by 

[the client] or anyone in [the client’s] behalf” or disclose “if 

counsel has received any fee or has a contract for the payment 

of same . . . so that the proper credit may be taken on counsel’s application.” 46

Because Washington County does not assign or argue that 

any of Roberts’ fee applications failed to meet the evidentiary 

requirements of court rule § 6-1407, we express no opinion in 

that regard. We do, however, reject as unfounded the county’s 

contention that before fees can be allowed under § 43-273, 

appointed counsel is required to affirmatively prove that his or 

her client remains unable to afford an attorney.

(c) Reasonableness of Allowed Fees

[12] When attorney fees are authorized by statute, the court 

exercises its discretion in setting the amount of the fee, which 

ruling an appellate court will not disturb absent an abuse 

of discretion. 47 We have recognized that when a trial court 

appoints counsel in either a criminal or a postconviction action, 

Nebraska statutes require the court to fix reasonable fees and 

expenses. 48 As such, we have found it amounts to an abuse 

45 § 6-1407.

46 Id.

47 See Rice, supra note 7.

48 See, e.g., Rice, supra note 7 (holding that once counsel is appointed in 

postconviction case, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3004 (Reissue 2016) requires 

court to fix reasonable fees and expenses); State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172, 

859 N.W.2d 305 (2015) (recognizing that once counsel is appointed to 

represent defendant in criminal matter, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3905 (Reissue 

2016) requires appointing court to fix reasonable fees and expenses); 

State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 151, 154, 444 N.W.2d 656, 659 (1989) (holding 

appointed counsel in criminal cases must be paid reasonable fees and 

expenses and finding an abuse of discretion in refusing to pay counsel for 

“substantial hours” devoted to such representation).
- 367 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

of discretion to refuse to allow any fees 49 or to refuse to 

compensate court-appointed counsel for services necessarily 

performed in representing the defendant. 50 Moreover, when a 

statute requires the court to fix reasonable fees for appointed 

counsel, the trial court has a duty to determine whether the 

requested fees are in fact reasonable, even if there is no objection to the application or no contrary evidence presented. 51

These same principles apply when a court appoints counsel in 

a juvenile proceeding.

[13,14] Here, once the juvenile court appointed Roberts to 

represent Kilynn in the juvenile proceedings, it had a duty 

under § 43-273 to “fix reasonable fees” for the necessary legal 

services Roberts performed in those proceedings. When fixing 

reasonable fees, a court considers several factors: the nature 

of the litigation, the time and labor required, the novelty and 

difficulty of the questions raised, the skill required to properly 

conduct the case, the responsibility assumed, the care and diligence exhibited, the result of the suit, the character and standing of the attorney, and the customary charges of the bar for 

similar services. 52

In these consolidated appeals, Washington County does not 

contend the juvenile court failed to consider any of these 

factors when fixing fees. Instead, it argues the fees allowed 

in 2019 were excessive and unreasonable, because Roberts 

already has been paid significant fees, because some of the 

billed time related to defending the county’s objection to her 

fee applications, and because some of the billed time pertained 

to activities on appeal. We address each of these arguments 

in turn.

49 See Rice, supra note 7.

50 See, Ryan, supra note 48; Rehm, supra note 19.

51 See Rice, supra note 7.

52 Id.
- 368 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

(i) Prior Fee Orders

The juvenile proceeding involving Kilynn has been pending since 2016. Washington County’s primary opposition to 

Roberts’ 2019 fee applications has been that considering the 

total amount of fees allowed since the inception of the case, 

the additional fees allowed in 2019 were excessive and unreasonable. The record generally shows that before the 2019 fee 

orders at issue in these consolidated appeals, Roberts applied 

for and was paid a total of $23,788.40 in fees for legal services 

performed in the juvenile proceeding since 2016.

[15] In arguing the fees allowed in 2019 were unreasonable and excessive, the county does not directly challenge the 

reasonableness of any earlier fee orders, nor could it. In the 

absence of an appeal, a court’s order fixing court-appointed 

counsel fees is conclusive upon both appointed counsel and the 

county as to the amount allowed, 53 and courts have no power 

to extend the time for appeal, either directly or indirectly. 54

Nor, for the most part, does the county argue that any particular time billed by Roberts in 2019 was unnecessary. Instead, 

the county complains that the fees allowed in 2019, when 

considered “in conjunction with” 55 the fees allowed since the 

inception of the case in 2016, amount to excessive compensation for a “simple” 56 abuse/neglect case. The county’s primary 

argument is that Roberts has “essentially been billing the 

county for working on the case nearly daily for three years” 57

without offering any “explanation of why it was reasonable 

and necessary.” 58

53 See, generally, Rehm, supra note 19.

54 See Bryson L. v. Izabella L., 302 Neb. 145, 921 N.W.2d 829 (2019).

55 Brief for appellant in case No. S-19-378 at 18.

56 Id. at 17.

57 Id. at 18.

58 Id. at 17.
- 369 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

Roberts counters that this has not been a simple juvenile 

case, and in response to the county’s suggestion that she regularly billed time in this case, her brief cites the practice guidelines applicable to attorneys in juvenile court, which require 

“high quality legal representation by all attorneys appearing 

before the juvenile court.” 59 Roberts highlights that in 2019, 

she successfully defended Kilynn in a 4-day parental rights termination trial, and Roberts adds that while her representation 

of Kilynn has been continuous since 2016, these appeals have 

effectively prevented her from being paid for any legal services 

in the case since September 2018.

We agree with the county that the total amount of fees 

allowed in this juvenile proceeding since 2016 has been significant. But we cannot find, on that basis alone, that the juvenile 

court abused its discretion in allowing Roberts’ fee applications 

in 2019.

[16,17] A judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly 

depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just 

results in matters submitted for disposition. 60 While both trial 

courts and appellate courts are regarded as experts on the value 

of legal services, a trial court ordinarily has a better opportunity for practically appraising the situation, and an appellate 

court will interfere only to correct a patent injustice, where the 

allowance is clearly excessive, or insufficient. 61

Here, the juvenile court was in the best position to determine 

whether the time billed in Roberts’ 2019 fee applications was 

reasonable and necessary for the services performed in the 

case, and we find ample support in the record for the court’s 

59 See §§ 6-1470 and 6-1706 (practice guidelines for attorneys practicing 

in juvenile court). See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-272(5) (Reissue 2016) 

(requiring Supreme Court to provide guidelines for standards of all 

attorneys practicing in juvenile court).

60 State v. Edwards, 294 Neb. 1, 880 N.W.2d 642 (2016).

61 See Omaha Paper Stock Co. v. California Union Ins. Co., 200 Neb. 31, 

262 N.W.2d 175 (1978).
- 370 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

findings in that regard. Moreover, we soundly reject the county’s suggestion that the court should have refused to allow any 

fees at all for necessary legal services in 2019 simply because 

prior fee allowances were significant. The juvenile court was 

correct in concluding it would have been an abuse of discretion either to refuse to fix any fees 62 or to refuse to reasonably 

compensate Roberts for services necessarily performed. 63

We therefore reject the county’s argument that the fees 

allowed in 2019 were unreasonable and excessive merely 

because significant fees had previously been allowed.

(ii) Paying Appointed Counsel for Defending 

Objections to Fee Application

Collectively, the juvenile court’s 2019 fee orders compensated Roberts for approximately 222 hours of time billed in the 

case; approximately 4 of those hours pertained to time billed to 

prepare for and attend the hearings on the county’s objections 

to her fee applications. Roberts did not bill for preparing or filing her fee applications.

Washington County contends it was error to compensate 

Roberts for any time defending the fee applications, arguing 

such time pertained to litigating counsel’s right to compensation and thus was not “for services performed” in the proceedings under § 43-273. Roberts responds that she is a solo 

practitioner and was required to take time away from other billable work to defend her statutory right to be reasonably compensated for services performed in the case. She suggests that 

if reasonable fees are never allowed for time spent defending 

meritless objections to fee applications, then appointed counsel 

will “be forced to take whatever the county attorney felt was 

appropriate” 64 and it would effectively be the county attorney, 

rather than the court, fixing appointed counsel fees.

62 See Rice, supra note 7.

63 See, Ryan, supra note 48; Rehm, supra note 19.

64 Brief for appellee in case No. S-19-533 at 15.
- 371 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

On this record, where the juvenile court essentially concluded the county’s objections to the fee applications had no 

basis in law or fact, we cannot find the trial court abused its 

discretion in concluding that the 4 hours billed by appointed 

counsel to defend against the county’s meritless objections was 

compensable as “services performed” in the proceeding under 

§ 43-273. We caution that in so holding, we are not suggesting that appointed counsel is always entitled to be paid for 

time defending an objection to a fee application, nor are we 

suggesting that it can never be an abuse of discretion to allow 

fees for defending against objections to fee applications. The 

reasonableness of allowing fees for defending an objection to 

a fee application is highly fact dependent and will vary from 

one case to the next. However, we reject the county’s contention that appointed counsel can never be allowed fees under 

§ 43-273 for defending an objection to a fee application, and 

to the extent the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in In re Interest 

of Antone C. et al. 65 can be read to support such a contention, 

it is disapproved.

Here, the record shows the juvenile court found no merit to 

any of the county’s objections to Roberts’ fee applications, and 

it expressly found that Roberts’ time defending her fee applications was reasonable and necessary. Because the trial court’s 

reasons and rulings in that regard were not clearly untenable, 

we find no abuse of discretion and we reject the county’s argument that the court erred in compensating appointed counsel 

for this time.

(iii) Applying to Juvenile Court for Payment 

of Legal Services Performed on Appeal

Roberts’ April 2019 fee application included approximately 

1.2 hours billed for services performed on appeal, and her 

July 2019 fee application included approximately 20 hours of 

time billed for services on appeal. Washington County objected 

65 In re Interest of Antone C. et al., 12 Neb. App. 152, 669 N.W.2d 69 

(2003).
- 372 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

to this time and took the position that if Roberts wanted to be 

paid for services performed on appeal, she needed to first seek 

appointment in the appellate court, and then needed to apply 

to the appellate court for payment once the appeal was concluded. The juvenile court rejected both of these arguments and 

allowed the fees.

We have not previously addressed whether appointed counsel in a juvenile proceeding should apply to the juvenile court, 

or to the appellate court, for payment of services performed on 

appeal. But before we discuss that issue, we find it necessary 

to correct the county’s assertion that Roberts needed to seek 

reappointment in the appellate court once the county took an 

appeal. Our appellate rules make clear that “[t]he attorneys of 

record and guardians ad litem of the respective parties in the 

court below shall be deemed the attorneys and guardians ad 

litem of the same parties in [the appellate] court, until a withdrawal of appearance has been filed” and the procedure for 

withdrawal has been followed. 66 As such, there is no need for 

appointed counsel to seek reappointment in the appellate court 

when a case is appealed.

The question whether counsel appointed in a juvenile proceeding should apply to the juvenile court or to the appellate 

court for payment of services performed on appeal requires more 

discussion. We begin with the pertinent statutory language.

Section 43-273 provides that counsel appointed under the 

juvenile code “shall apply to the court before which the proceedings were had for fees for services performed” and that the 

court “shall fix reasonable fees.” It also provides that once fees 

are fixed, “[t]he county board of the county wherein the proceedings were had shall allow [fees] in the amount determined 

by the court.” 67

The language of § 43-273 is somewhat different from 

the statutory language governing payment of court-appointed 

66 Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-101(F)(1) (rev. 2015).

67 § 43-273.
- 373 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

counsel in criminal cases, which expressly requires that 

appointed counsel “shall apply to the . . . court which appointed 

him or her . . . for fees for services performed pursuant to such 

appointment.” 68 Our appellate rules are clear that if a criminal 

case is appealed, court-appointed counsel may, “after issuance 

of a mandate by the appellate court, apply to the appointing 

court for an attorney fee regarding services in the appeal.” 69

Currently, there is no similar court rule addressing whether 

court-appointed counsel in a juvenile proceeding should apply 

to the juvenile court or to the appellate court for services performed when a juvenile proceeding is on appeal.

We understand Washington County to take the position that 

once a juvenile proceeding is appealed, the appellate court 

becomes “the court before which the proceedings were had” 70

and appointed counsel must apply to the appellate court for 

payment of fees for all services performed on appeal. However, 

were we to construe § 43-273 to require court-appointed counsel to apply to the appellate court, rather than the juvenile 

court, for payment of legal services performed on appeal, it 

would cause an absurd result.

Nebraska’s appellate courts are located in Lancaster County, 

and § 43-273 requires that once fees are fixed, “[t]he county 

board of the county wherein the proceedings were had” is 

required to allow the claim. As such, construing § 43-273 to 

require appointed counsel to apply to the appellate court for 

payment would make Lancaster County responsible for paying all fees fixed for services performed by court-appointed 

counsel on appeal. An appellate court should try to avoid, if 

possible, the construction of a statute that would lead to an 

absurd result. 71

68 § 29-3905.

69 Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(F) (rev. 2014) (emphasis supplied).

70 § 43-273.

71 See Hotz, supra note 5.
- 374 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CLAIM OF ROBERTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Cite as 307 Neb. 346

[18] The more sensible construction of § 43-273 is that 

“the court before which the proceedings were had” refers 

to the appointing juvenile court, even if an appeal is taken. 

We therefore hold that when a juvenile case is appealed, 

§ 43-273 requires appointed counsel to apply to the juvenile 

court, not the appellate court, for payment of services performed on appeal. The juvenile court here was correct to reject 

Washington County’s suggestion that Roberts must apply to the 

appellate court for payment of her fees.

Ordinarily, a juvenile court will want to wait for issuance of 

the appellate mandate before fixing reasonable fees for services 

on appeal, because that will allow it to fully evaluate the various factors a court is to consider when fixing fees. 72 But on this 

record, and absent a statute or court rule requiring appointed 

counsel to wait for the appellate mandate before applying for 

fees, we cannot find the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

fixing fees before the appellate mandate issued.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the fee orders of the 

juvenile court.

Affirmed.

72 See Rice, supra note 7 (when fixing fees for court-appointed counsel, 

courts should consider nature of litigation, time and labor required, 

novelty and difficulty of questions involved, skill required, responsibility 

assumed, diligence exhibited, result of suit, standing of attorney, and 

customary charges for similar services).