Opinion ID: 1583123
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Amsler's Contract with the State Public Defender Entitles her to be Paid for Representing a Grandparent in a Parental Termination Action

Text: In its ruling, the juvenile court conceded it may have lacked statutory authority to appoint Amsler. Nonetheless, the court ruled in Amsler's favor because it interpreted the clear terms of the Legal Services Contract entitled Amsler to compensation. The State Public Defender argues the juvenile court should not have considered the terms of the contract in its ruling because Amsler did not rely on the contract as her basis for recovery. The Iowa Administrative Code provides the procedures for seeking review of the State Public Defender's decision to deny or reduce a claim. In the motion for review, the attorney must set forth each and every ground on which the attorney intends to rely in challenging the action of the state public defender, Iowa Admin. Code r. 493-12.9(1)( b ), and [t]he court shall consider only the issues raised in the attorney's motion. Id. r. 493-12.9(2)( d ). Amsler did not expressly raise the contract in her motion. Instead, she appealed to the court's sense of fairness by noting the State Public Defender did not challenge the validity of the appointment order at the time of its issuance [1] and claiming she acted in good faith. At the hearing, the juvenile court asked to see the contract between the State Public Defender and Amsler. The State Public Defender agreed to fax it to the court. He did not object to the contract being offered into evidence. Consequently, the State Public Defender did not preserve this alleged error for our review. Turning now to the contract, we tend to agree with the juvenile court the contract allows recovery. The contract states: 2. Services to be Performed by Contractor: Contractor will provide legal services to indigent persons in criminal, juvenile, post-conviction, contempt/show cause proceedings, or proceedings under Iowa Code chapter 229A as assigned by the Court. . . . 3. Compensation: Contractor will be paid for reasonable and necessary legal services performed by Contractor under this Contract, pursuant to administrative rule adopted by the State Public Defender. In addition to this compensation, expenses . . . will be paid to the extent specified by administrative rule adopted by the State Public Defender. The contract does not specifically address the consequences of a court appointing Amsler where there is no statutory authority for the appointment. A legitimate reading of the contract requires Amsler to be paid simply if she is appointed by the court. Although the contract requires Amsler to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, the State Public Defender fails to specify what law, if any, Amsler violated by accepting the appointment to represent Snell in the termination action.