Opinion ID: 1132505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ordering Appearances for Fee-Collecting Purposes

Text: The commission found that petitioner established a practice of unlawfully ordering repeated appearances for the sole purpose of collection of fee orders. Petitioner testified as follows: He felt some obligation, though not the exclusive duty, to collect attorney fees assessed under section 987.8, but he had few available means of collection other than [continuing] the case until [the defendant] was able to pay or continuing it and asking him if he needed more time. The form provided by the county's bureau of resources and collections had no place on the form that said that you are ordered to return. So, we had a little stamp that said that the defendant is ordered to return, that we would stamp on there, and that is the only way that we could continue any control over the situation at all was to just have him come back within a reasonable period of time and ask him if he had paid it. The defendant would be ordered by the court to come back on a particular date because it's necessary in order to resolve the case to ask him some questions about his ability: Why haven't you paid this thing? Are you still unemployed? Do you need more time? Would you like to do it some different way? Would you like to do community service? Somewhere along the line you find out that you can't do some of these things, then you refer it to the Department of Collections, and let them take care of it. And there were occasions when people came back two or three times and didn't pay, or hadn't paid, when I do recall that we referred it to the Bureau of Resources and Collections at that time, and it hadn't been referred prior. If the defendant failed to appear as ordered, a bench warrant for his arrest would be issued, as in the case of a witness who disobeys an order to appear. (4) This testimony is clear and convincing evidence that petitioner unlawfully ordered appearances for purposes of collection. Section 987.8 does not authorize issuance of orders in the criminal proceeding to return to court for that purpose. Even on the issue of ability to pay, a court that has initially determined that issue is limited to ordering one additional hearing before the court within six months plus an appearance before a designated county officer. Petitioner recognizes that the statute expressly forbids enforcement of fee orders by contempt, but his use of bench warrants to compel appearances for interrogation on why the defendant has not paid (as distinct from investigation of ability to pay) amounted to using the threat of incarceration for collection purposes. [2]