Opinion ID: 1611086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: State v. Wigley

Text: While Peart dealt with a local public defender's office representing indigent defendants, the case of State v. Wigley, 624 So.2d 425 (La.1993), decided the same year as Peart, concerned the appointment of attorneys from the private bench to represent indigent defendants. In Wigley, the court reaffirmed that the [u]ncompensated representation of indigents, when reasonably imposed, is a professional obligation burdening the privilege of practicing law in this state, and does not violate the constitutional rights of attorneys. Id., 624 So.2d at 426. However, in order for the appointment to be reasonable, and not oppressive, the court also held that any assignment of counsel to defend an indigent defendant must provide for reimbursement to the assigned attorney of properly incurred and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses and overhead costs. Id., 624 So.2d at 429. The court charged the district judges with the authority to determine, in their discretion, what would constitute an unreasonable level of time that an attorney must devote to a particular case without compensation of a fee. Such a system will strike a balance between the attorney's ethical duty to provide services pro bono publico and his or her practical need to continue to perform his or her other obligations. Id., 624 So.2d at 429. The court in Wigley levied another charge on the district courts. While acknowledging the fact that the source of funds from which appointed counsel may be reimbursed were, at that time, limited, the court directed the district judges to make the initial determination, before counsel is appointed, that sufficient funds to cover the anticipated expenses and overhead are likely to be available to reimburse counsel. Id., 624 So.2d at 429. Moreover, the court instructed that [i]f the district judge determines that funds are not available to reimburse appointed counsel, he should not appoint members of the private bar to represent indigents. Id. Recognizing the harshness of this remedy, the court nevertheless maintained that budget exigencies cannot serve as an excuse for the oppressive and abusive extension of attorneys' professional responsibilities. Id.