Opinion ID: 1119132
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appointment of civil practitioners

Text: The scheme adopted by Respondent appoints attorneys on a rotational basis, with apparently little or no individual consideration for matching lawyers possessing particular experience or training with specific cases. The compensation scheme adopted by the court for these conscripted lawyers provides a total of $375 for up to twenty hours' work on a case ($17.50 per hour), and $50 an hour if more than twenty hours are required to complete the representation. For attorneys such as Deason, who believe they are ill-equipped to represent criminal defendants, the court offered the assistance of paid mentors, attorneys who specialize in criminal law. These mentors agree to be available for consultation but nothing else.
It is axiomatic that our criminal justice system demands that every defendant threatened with a loss of liberty be represented at trial and on appeal by competent counsel. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 6.1(b). Defendants not able to afford to hire counsel are entitled to have counsel appointed for them. Ariz. Const. Art. 2, § 24; State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123, 131, 392 P.2d 784, 790 (1964). By statute, when a court appoints counsel to represent a criminal defendant, that counsel shall be paid by the county in which the court presides. A.R.S. § 13-4013. By rule, appointment of private lawyers to represent criminal defendants shall be made in a manner fair and equitable to the members of the bar, taking into account the skill likely to be required in handling a particular case. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 6.5(c). A necessary corollary of these principles is that the attorney appointed must render competent, effective assistance at trial and on appeal. State v. DeLuna, 110 Ariz. 497, 500-01, 520 P.2d 1121, 1124-25 (1974). Assigning an attorney incapable, for whatever reason, of providing effective assistance at these stages violates a defendant's constitutional rights. Id.; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Our code of professional conduct echoes these policies. See ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Ethical Rules 1.1, 1.7(b), 6.2 cmt., Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 42. Inadequate representation at trial and on appeal also violates the public's interest in  and right to  establishing a fair justice system and achieving prompt, final disposition of charges. We believe the Yuma County system of appointing private attorneys for indigent defendants offends the requirements of the statute and the rule. First, appointment of lawyers on a random, rotational basis does not take into account the skill likely to be required in handling a particular case. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 6.5(c). Respondent does not suggest that there is any individualized matching of lawyer to defendant. Instead, Respondent justifies the appointments by providing mentors. As Respondent describes them, the mentors are available to assist in the answer to questions and to assist you (not do your work for you). We do not share Respondent's optimism that an attorney like Deason, who has no trial or criminal experience, can become reasonably competent to represent a defendant, like Zarabia, charged with a very serious crime, simply by having a mentor with whom to consult as the need may be perceived and the occasion arise. Indeed, one wonders whether even a very able probate and estate planning lawyer will know when or on what issue to seek help and advice.
Yuma County is obligated by A.R.S. § 13-4013 and Rule 6.5(c) to provide appointed counsel and pay such counsel reasonable and equitable compensation. Even a brief analysis of the county's system reveals that it fails to meet this standard. Morgan normally charges his civil clients $150 an hour. He has calculated his overhead expenses to be approximately $75 per billable hour. If this is correct, and we can certainly take notice that established lawyers have substantial overhead expenses, the compensation schedule for appointed attorneys will pay Morgan only twenty-five to sixty-five percent of his overhead expenses and nothing for his time. A compensation scheme that allows lawyers significantly less than their overhead expense is obviously unreasonable, although on this sparse record we refrain from any formal finding on whether the Yuma County fee schedule is unreasonable. Yuma's payment schedule simply illustrates the inequity of the appointment system. It is impermissible for the presiding judge, in wholesale fashion, to transfer the public's constitutional obligation to pay the financial cost of indigent defense to the county's private lawyers.