Title: Clark v. Ivy
Citation: 240 Kan. 195, 727 P.2d 493
Docket Number: 59,433
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 1986

240 Kan. 195 (1986)
727 P.2d 493
THE HONORABLE PAUL W. CLARK and THE HONORABLE JAMES G. BEASLEY, District Court Judges, Eighteenth Judicial District, Petitioners,
v.
JOHN T. IVY, JERRY DRISCOLL, JACK SHRIVER, DEBORAH PURCE JONES, JAMES T. WIGLESWORTH, LYNN ZELLER-BARCLEY, MAURICE J. RYAN, ALAN G. METZGER, PAUL WINKLER, Who Comprise The State Board of Indigents' Defense Services; and RONALD E. MILES, Director of the State Board of Indigents' Defense Services, Respondents.
No. 59,433

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed October 31, 1986.
E. Lael Alkire, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Thomas M. Warner, Jr., of Wichita, was with him on the briefs for petitioners.
Stephen M. Joseph, of Robinson &amp; Anderson, P.A., of Wichita, argued the cause, and Mark F. Anderson, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an original mandamus action wherein petitioner judges seek to compel respondent members of the State Board of Indigents' Defense Services to pay compensation to seven attorneys appointed by petitioners to represent defendants in 1984.
Before proceeding to the issues, the background facts which led to the commencement of this unpropitious litigation must be *196 set forth in some detail. Prior to 1982, the Board of Supervisors Panels to Aid Indigent Defendants within the judicial branch administered the state program for compensation of court-appointed defense attorneys for indigent defendants in criminal felony cases. Effective July 1, 1982, the Board of Supervisors abolished and its function was transferred to the newly created State Board of Indigents' Defense Services operating within executive branch of state government. See Indigents' Services Act, K.S.A. 22-4501 et seq. The change was not opposed by the judicial branch.
One of the primary factors leading to the change in administration of the program was legislative concern over the increasing cost of providing legal services to indigent defendants criminal felony cases. Public defender programs had been established prior to 1982 in some judicial districts, but the major of judicial districts had no such program. The Eighteenth Judicial District (Sedgwick County), in which petitioners serve district judges, did not have a public defender program and, virtue of the large number of criminal cases arising therefrom substantial portion of state monies allocated for payment court-appointed indigents' defense counsel was being expended each year in that district. The concept of establishing a public defender program in the Eighteenth Judicial District as a means of cost containment had been raised a number of times but never came to fruition. The judiciary in the district never endorsed the establishment of a public defender office, and some member thereof went on record as being opposed thereto.
The duties and powers of the newly created State Board of Indigents' Defense Services are set forth in K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-4522. That statute, in part, provides:
On October 15, 1983, the State Board of Indigents' Defense *197 Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") voted to establish a public defender office in the Eighteenth Judicial District and notice of the decision was sent three days later to Judge James Noone, the district's administrative judge, and to Judge Paul Clark, petitioner herein and presiding judge of the district's criminal division.
On June 18, 1984, the public defender office, consisting of seven staff attorneys, opened for business in the district. On June 29, 1984, the Board met and received a report from the district's chief public defender that "Judge Clark did not appoint him to an A felony case and said that he would decide on a case by case basis whether to appoint the public defender to such cases in the future." The same day the Board adopted a policy "that in public defender districts the administrative judges appoint the public defender offices to A, B and C felonies (most serious offenses) in lieu of assigned counsel unless a conflict of interest arises and that the Board will review such claims from assigned counsel to decide whether or not such claims will be paid." The minutes of the Board for that day further reflect that a motion was passed to inform Judge Clark of the policy just adopted and this was done.
The district's public defender office continued to monitor court appointments and reported to the Board seven appointments of private attorneys occurring between August 24, 1984, and December 10, 1984, in which the public defender office was not aware of any conflict with its office which would preclude representation by that office. As the claims started coming in from the seven attorneys involved, the Board requested an opinion from the Kansas Attorney General. The question posed was the "extent of the Board's authority to deny claims for compensation filed by attorneys appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants in districts where the board has established a public defender office to provide legal services to such defendants." Attorney General Opinion No. 84-119, dated December 13, 1984, concluded the Board had the authority to deny claims "which do not comply with the board's plan for the provision of such services."
Sometime in early December 1984, respondent Director Miles met with petitioner Clark concerning the Board's review of claims submitted. On December 13, 1984, respondent Jones (Board Chairperson) sent the following letter to petitioner Clark:
*198 Dear Judge Clark:
The stipulation filed herein reflects the following transpired *199 thereafter relative to the seven private attorney appointments questioned by the public defender office.
Subsequently, the controversy escalated when petitioner Clark went on the offensive. The stipulation filed herein reflects the following:
This action resulted with the contempt proceeding being held in abeyance during the pendency of this litigation. We turn now to the issues presented.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
The position of the petitioners is essentially as follows:
The respondents' position in this regard may be summarized as follows:
*201 In State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 236 Kan. 45, 59-60, 687 P.2d 622 (1984), this court said of the separation of powers:
*202 With these principles in mind, let us consider how appointment of counsel and compensation therefor operate in Kansas.
The judiciary has the obligation to appoint counsel for indigent defendants charged with crimes, whether felonies or misdemeanors. Likewise, the judiciary has certain obligations to appoint attorneys in proceedings under the Code for Care of Children (K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 38-1501 et seq.) and the Juvenile Offenders Code (K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 38-1601 et seq.). Payment of fees of attorneys so appointed in juvenile proceedings is provided by counties. Payment of fees of attorneys appointed for indigent defendants charged only with misdemeanor offenses, likewise, has not been assumed by the State. Only in cases involving felonies does the State provide means for expending state monies for providing legal services to indigent defendants. The legislature has never given a blank check for payment of such attorney fees. Whether under the Board of Supervisors within the judicial branch (prior to 1982) or the present Board within the executive branch, payment of fees was always subject to funds available. The mere appointment of an attorney by a court in a felony criminal case does not create an absolute duty on the part of the State to compensate that attorney in full or in part for his or her services. As we held in State v. Keener, 224 Kan. 100, 577 P.2d 1182, cert. denied 439 U.S. 953 (1978):
Cost containment in the area of state expenditures in providing counsel to indigent defendants in felony criminal cases has been a legislative concern for many years. Such concern was a primary reason for the creation of the Board. K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-4522 outlines the Board's power and duties, as follows:
"(3) criteria for employing contract counsel; and
Clearly, the Board is to establish the most cost-effective means in each county or combination of counties of adequately providing legal services for indigents accused of felony charges. The Board may, in its discretion, determine that in a given county a public defender office will be established. Certainly, the Board had the right to establish the public defender office in Sedgwick County, and even petitioners do not contend otherwise. K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-4522 further provides the Board shall establish the "[s]tandards for entitlement to legal representation at public expense."
These procedures dovetail with K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-4503(c) which provides, after a determination of indigency, the trial court shall:
*204 The Indigents' Defense Services Act further provides in K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-4507(a):
We believe the intent and purpose of the Act is clear. The Board determines what program or combination of programs will be used in particular counties to provide state-paid defense counsel. The Board is directly responsible to the legislature for the development and operation of such programs and for the expenditure of all state monies allocated for payment of legal services for indigent defendants in felony cases. To fulfill its statutorily mandated duties, the Board must have the power to review and monitor claims and reject claims not authorized by the standards and programs established. Suppose a public defender office is established in County A by the Board and further suppose the judge or judges in the county totally ignore the public defender office and make all appointments from the private bar. Obviously then, the Board, if it were required to pay claims without question to all such private attorneys, would be paying for duplicate services. The Board would have no ability to carry out its legislative mandate.
We do not believe there is a valid separation of powers issue before us. The executive branch is not infringing herein upon the judicial branch. A judge may appoint any attorney he or she pleases who is capable of adequately representing a defendant providing, of course, the attorney accepts the appointment. There is no infringement on the judicial right or duty of appointment. It is only where compensation for the services of such appointed attorney is expected to be paid from state monies that compliance with the Board's programs, standards, and policies becomes involved. The position of petitioners that review of claims of appointed counsel by the Board and rejection thereof, if not in compliance with the programs, standards, and policies of the Board, is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine is both legally and logically untenable.
TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE
The preceding issue has been concerned with power  what the Board has the power to do. The issue before us now is a *205 technical one concerning the legal effect of the adoption by the Board on June 29, 1984, of a policy "that in public defender districts the administrative judges appoint the public defender offices to A, B and C felonies (most serious offenses) in lieu of assigned counsel unless a conflict of interest arises and that the Board will review such claims from assigned counsel to decide whether or not such claims will be paid." Immediately after the policy was adopted, the minutes of the Board meeting reflect: "A motion was passed instructing Mr. Miles [State Director of Indigents' Defense Services] to prepare a communication to Judge Clark expressing the Board's concern and informing him that if he should appoint assigned counsel to A and B felonies that the Board will review all such claims and pay on a case by case basis." As will be recalled, the Board had just heard from the chief public defender in the new Sedgwick County public defender office of an appointment by Judge Clark of private counsel for a defendant charged with an A felony where no apparent conflict existed as far as the public defender office was concerned. It is undisputed the message concerning the new policy was forthwith transmitted to Judge Clark by telephone. All of the appointments involved herein occurred after adoption of the policy and notification thereof to Judge Clark.
K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-4522(d), in pertinent part, authorizes the Board to:
K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 77-425 provides, in pertinent part:
At the time of the appointments herein there was no rule or regulation filed and published in accordance with K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 77-425 expressing the policy established in the Board's June 29, 1984, meeting relative to appointment of the public defender office to A, B, and C felony cases.
*206 The position of the petitioners is that failure to file and publish the policy pursuant to K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 77-425 rendered the policy of no force or effect, thereby nullifying any requirement that the public defender office be appointed to such cases. Therefore, so petitioners' argument goes, they were free to appoint private counsel under the system created prior to the establishment of the public defender office and such appointments are in compliance with regulations published by the Board (K.A.R. 105-1-1 et seq.).
We find this argument to be without merit. The requirement for filing and publishing rules and regulations is primarily one of dissemination of information. Members of the public, and others affected thereby, should not be subjected to agency rules and regulations whose existence is known only by agency personnel. The attorneys whose claims are involved are not parties to this litigation. Rather, petitioners are members of the judiciary and actual notice of the policy was given to Judge Clark as presiding judge of the criminal division of the Eighteenth Judicial District. Presumably, he passed this information on to Judge Beasley. There is no contention Judge Beasley was unaware of the establishment of the policy. The public defender office had opened for business on June 18, 1984. Eleven days later a possible problem which could jeopardize the operation of the office was brought to the attention of the Board. The Board adopted a policy designed to eliminate the problem and caused notice thereof to be communicated directly to the presiding judge of the criminal division where the problem originated. We conclude that under the facts herein the June 29, 1984, policy declaration by the Board was valid and applicable to subsequent appointments by the petitioner judges as to any issue concerned in the litigation between the parties herein.
CONCLUSION
K.S.A. 60-801 provides:
In Arney v. Director, Kansas State Penitentiary, 234 Kan. 257, 671 P.2d 559 (1983), we stated the general rules relative to mandamus as follows:
Clearly, the Board herein exercised discretion in the handling of the subject claims by attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants and has no "clearly defined duty" to pay such claims. The Board's activities in the area involve considerably more than ministerial acts. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus must be denied.
Before concluding, some additional comments are in order. It is most unfortunate that this controversy and litigation ever occurred. It is hoped that petitioners will, in the future, adopt a more reasonable and conciliatory approach to the Board. The judiciary, the Board, and attorneys representing indigents are bound together in the common goal of providing adequate legal services to indigent defendants on a cost-effective basis and should work together to accomplish that goal. The attorneys providing the legal services herein who have had their claims rejected have, through no apparent fault of their own, become casualties in a territorial dispute between two members of the judiciary and a state agency. It is hoped the denial of their claims will be reviewed in the future and sufficient information will then be provided to the Board by petitioners or the attorneys themselves to enable compensation to be paid.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
HOLMES and HERD, JJ., concur in the result.