Opinion ID: 2603660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: constitutional right of the attorney to reasonable compensation

Text: Enunciated nearly 140 years ago in Blythe v. State, 4 Ind. 525 (1853) and then reannounced and comprehensively emphasized in Webb v. Baird, 6 Ind. 13 (1854) and quoted in Knox County Council v. State ex rel. McCormick, 217 Ind. 493, 29 N.E.2d 405, 408 (1940): The gratuitous defence of a pauper is placed upon two grounds, viz., as an honorary duty, even as far back as the civil law; and as a statutory requirement. Honorary duties are hardly susceptible of enforcement in a Court of law. Besides, in this state, the profession of the law was never much favored by special pecuniary emoluments, save, some years ago, in the case of docket-fees in certain contingencies. The reciprocal obligations of the profession to the body politic, are slender in proportion.    [A]ny class should be paid for their particular services in empty honors, is an obsolete idea, belonging to another age and to a state of society hostile to liberty and equal rights. The legal profession having been thus properly stripped of all its odious distinctions and peculiar emoluments, the public can no longer justly demand of that class of citizens any gratuitous services which would not be demandable of every other class. To the attorney, his profession is his means of livelihood. His legal knowledge is his capital stock. His professional services are no more at the mercy of the public, as to remuneration, than are the goods of the merchant, or the crops of the farmer, or the wares of the mechanic. The law which requires gratuitous services from a particular class, in effect imposes a tax to that extent upon such class ÔÇö clearly in violation of the fundamental law, which provides for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation upon all the citizens. It must be matter of congratulation to the profession that they are thus relieved from the burden of gratuitous services and useless honors; and remitted to the more substantial rewards of other citizens. The conception that the ancient so-called majority rule required the attorney to serve the cause of justice on behalf of an indigent as a professional honor, for which appointed counsel ought not request compensation, is now totally out of date. It is stated: We are acutely aware, however, that, under prevailing concepts in the field of the administration of criminal justice, the ever increasing requirements for legal representation of indigents on appeal in the field of criminal law, in the postconviction area, in the juvenile delinquency arena, and in related civil commitment situations are rapidly imposing an extremely heavy and time consuming burden upon the legal profession. This being so, it follows that to require an attorney to process an appeal without any prospect of compensation will possibly not only tend to detract from the quality of his service to the indigent and to the court, but might ultimately lead to a scarcity of counsel willing and able to accept appointment. Honore v. Washington State Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles, 77 Wash.2d 660, 466 P.2d 485, 496 (1970). The court held that for the purpose of habeas corpus, the attorney who is appointed and prosecutes the appeal is entitled to compensation for his services from public funds. The Oklahoma court likewise determined in Bias v. State, 568 P.2d 1269 (Okl. 1977) that an award of $250 was unconstitutional when a lawyer undertook a difficult assignment and spent 255 hours in the representation. Recognizing the so-called prior majority rule where statutes and practices had withstood attack on grounds that the indigent representation assignments constituted involuntary servitude, denied equal protection of the law, took property without due process of law and took property for public purposes without just compensation, the court determined that the denied compensation was outdated under the Oklahoma Constitution. The court was guided by People ex rel. Conn v. Randolph, 35 Ill.2d 24, 219 N.E.2d 337 (1966) that an extraordinary burden on the attorney could not be constitutionally imposed by the court. See likewise Delisio v. Alaska Superior Court, 740 P.2d 437 (Alaska 1987); State v. Green, 470 S.W.2d 571 (Mo. 1971); Lueck v. State, 99 Nev. 717, 669 P.2d 719 (1983); Clark County v. Smith, 96 Nev. 854, 619 P.2d 1217 (1980); and State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court In and For Washoe County, 85 Nev. 241, 453 P.2d 421 (1969). Cf. Clark v. Ivy, 240 Kan. 195, 727 P.2d 493 (1986), which was superceded by State ex rel. Stephan v. Smith, 242 Kan. 336, 747 P.2d 816 (1987), where, after an exhaustive review, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that the operational system for appointment of counsel for indigents violated both the Kansas and United States Constitutions. The practice of law in Wyoming is vested in the supervisory responsibility of the Wyoming Supreme Court. An examination of that relationship inevitably demonstrates a mutuality of responsibility and requires recognition that supervision also carries an equivalent responsibility for the court to promote the well being of the profession. In recognition of that concept to sustain the well being of the legal profession and due process and fairness to its members, we should also recognize the discriminatory relationship which has developed between those attorneys who provide services under state law compared to those who have the munificences of a practice directed towards civil right violations and federally imposed attorney fee proceedings. [15] An obvious difference exists since, in many regards under the federal proceedings as is true in many jurisdictions under worker's compensation statutes, the client has to win for the attorney to gain fees. However, normally a contingent fee relationship is provided which accommodates itself most appropriately within the significantly higher fee awards paid. Page v. Green, 758 S.W.2d 173 (Mo. App. 1988); Gullett v. Stanley Structures, 222 Mont. 365, 722 P.2d 619 (1986). See Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990). Cf. Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527 (9th Cir.1989), involving both statutory fees and contingent fees. If an adequate level of representation is going to be provided to those persons who require court appointed attorneys for civil or criminal processes within the purview of the state court system, then the quality will be affected by the adequacy of compensation. Two directly related yet completely different constitutional interests are at issue. First is the right of the client to adequate representation and second is the attorney entitlement to make an adequate living if he is expected to perform competently and remain in the private practice of law. The client's constitutional interest is founded in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution of right to counsel and due process. The attorney's constitutional interest is involved in a property interest and prohibition against taking under the Fifth Amendment. In addition to the distribution of powers provided by Wyo. Const. art. 2, Wyo. Const. art. 1,  6, due process of law; Wyo. Const. art. 1,  8, courts open to all; and Wyo. Const. art. 1,  34, uniform operation of the law, address the constitutional interests of the client. Phifer is entitled to seek constitutional recognition of her interest in Wyo. Const. art. 1,  6, which states [n]o person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law; in Wyo. Const. art. 1,  33, which indicates private property shall not be taken or damage for public or private use without just compensation; in Wyo. Const. art. 1,  34, which states all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation; and in Wyo. Const. art. 3,  27, which says that special and local laws are prohibited where a general law can be made applicable no special law shall be enacted. The line of contrary persuasion is generally referenced to United States v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 978, 86 S.Ct. 550, 15 L.Ed.2d 469 (1966) which established a moral, ethical as well as legal responsibility of the attorney to accept a pro bono appointment by judicial compulsion. Differences can be found between civil and criminal cases in some jurisdictions. See Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 133 P.2d 325, 331 (1943), which states: The attorney, because of his position as officer of the court, can be compelled by the court to render gratuitous services in the defense of indigents, and an attorney who has been so appointed is not entitled to compensation from the public in the absence of a specific statute to the contrary. Compare In Interest of D.B., 385 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1980); State ex rel. Scott v. Roper, 688 S.W.2d 757 (Mo. 1985), authenticating that no enforceable donative duty exists in civil proceedings; Menin v. Menin, 79 Misc.2d 285, 359 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1974); and Bedford v. Salt Lake County, 22 Utah 2d 12, 447 P.2d 193, 194-95 (1968). [16] A rigorous analysis of a developing judicial philosophy for the recognition of responsibility to pay for legal services when appointments are made to represent the indigent is found in a current course of Florida cases. Board of County Com'rs of Hillsborough County v. Scruggs, 545 So.2d 910 (Fla.App. 1989); White v. Board of County Com'rs of Pinellas County, 537 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1989); The Florida Bar In re Roth, 500 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1986) ( see also The Florida Bar v. Roth, 471 So.2d 29 (1985), reh'g 500 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1986)); Makemsom v. Martin County, 491 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1043, 107 S.Ct. 908, 93 L.Ed.2d 857 (1987); Metropolitan Dade County v. Bridges, 402 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1981); In Interest of D.B., 385 So.2d 83. The course of cases establish not only the right to counsel and the right for reasonable compensation for counsel in criminal cases, but the extension of the Sixth Amendment criminal rights to the due process considerations of civil proceedings of a constitutional nature. Scruggs, 545 So.2d 910; In Interest of D.B., 385 So.2d 83. A similar recognition of the responsibility of the government and not the individual lawyer to provide legal services for the indigent was developed in the South Dakota cases. Tappe v. Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit In and For Tripp County, 326 N.W.2d 892 (S.D. 1982); Johnson v. City Commission of City of Aberdeen, 272 N.W.2d 97 (S.D. 1978). The subject was addressed by the Utah Supreme Court for civil law in an involuntary commitment context: By requesting the court to appoint counsel, an indigent defendant impliedly consents to pay a reasonable fee for the services rendered, and thus the lawyer is not entirely forced to render service without compensation therefor. However, it must be understood that the assumption of a defense of an impecunious defendant by a lawyer is a matter strictly between the court and the lawyer, and the legislature can no more require a lawyer to represent a client for free than it can compel a physician to treat a sick or injured indigent patient without pay. For the legislature to attempt to compel a lawyer to work by passing a statute requiring the judge to order it done would be to take his property without giving just compensation, or to impose a form of involuntary servitude upon him. The legal assistance which an attorney renders to a client is his stock in trade; and in order for the attorney to make a living, he must sell his service. Until the legislature provides a method by which a lawyer can be paid for compulsory services to an indigent person, a statute requiring such services is unconstitutional as requiring one to give services (a form of property) without just compensation being paid therefor. It matters not that the service is to be rendered to one other than the state. It would still be an involuntary taking by the state. Bedford, 447 P.2d at 194-95. See also Green, 470 S.W.2d 571. The principal case of historical precedent rejecting the involuntary servitude of an attorney to represent the indigent without fee is Blythe, 4 Ind. 525. See likewise Knox County Council, 29 N.E.2d at 407-08, in stating: It follows therefore that where one who is without means is charged with crime, the question of whether he shall have counsel appointed for him has not been left to the discretion of the court or the Legislature. It has been determined by the people in their Constitutions, national and state, that he shall have counsel, and that there can be no legal prosecution of the charge against him unless and until counsel is provided for him. The Constitution of this state vests the judicial power in the courts. The judiciary is an independent and equal coordinate branch of the government. Courts were established for the purpose of administering justice judicially, and it has been said that their powers are coequal with their duties. In other words, they have inherent power to do everything that is necessary to carry out the purpose of their creation. The Constitution contemplates indictment and trial in the courts for crime. It is the duty of the court to see that justice is administered speedily, without delay, and legally, and in conformity to the constitutional mandates. One of these constitutional mandates is that a defendant in a criminal case shall have counsel to represent him. It is the duty of the courts therefore to see to it that he shall have counsel. In many, if not most, jurisdictions it is regarded a part of the general duty of members of the bar to act as counsel for destitute persons charged with crime, and it is perhaps the majority rule that, when appointed by the court, attorneys must look alone to the possible future ability of the accused to pay their compensation when no provision therefor is made by statute. 7 Corpus Juris Secundum, Attorney and Client,  172, p. 1033; 5 American Jurisprudence,  157, p. 354. But, from the earliest times, this court has held that to require the services of an attorney to prosecute and defend without fee is in conflict with section 21 of article 1 of the Constitution of Indiana. Blythe v. State, 1853, 4 Ind. 525; Webb, Auditor, etc. v. Baird, 1854, 6 Ind. 13. In the latter case it was said that it will not be contended that the court had a right to demand the attorney's services in defending without reward, and that, if the statute is looked upon as authority for the appointment of counsel to defend poor persons without reward, the statute is in conflict with the superior constitutional provision. The Supreme Court of Nebraska in Kovarik v. Banner County, 192 Neb. 816, 224 N.W.2d 761, 764 (1975), first quoted from Luke v. Los Angeles County, 269 Cal. App.2d 495, 74 Cal. Rptr. 771 (1969), said that [i]f society is to demand representation by counsel in an expanding variety of proceedings and to insist on a high level of competency in the performance of such representation, then counsel should be paid. Luke, 74 Cal. Rptr. at 765 then determined: In this case we believe that plaintiff in defending the indigent conferred through the services a benefit upon the public, and that in accordance with the general rule that when one party renders service of benefit to another there is an implied obligation on the part of the recipient to pay the reasonable value of the services rendered. The cost involved is not a burden which should be made to rest unequally upon the individual, merely because he is an attorney. See likewise for parole revocation, State ex rel. Fitas v. Milwaukee County, 65 Wis.2d 130, 221 N.W.2d 902 (1974), where the power of the judiciary to appoint and the obligation of the state to pay was defined. In Iowa, the issue was an indigent facing a jail sentence from a contempt of court proceeding for non-support. McNabb v. Osmundson, 315 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 1982). The court found the protection that sheltered the defendant to be found in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, although sixth amendment decisions of the Supreme Court [were considered]. Id. at 11. With appointment, the court found the concomitant obligation on the part of the public is to pay for the legal services. In the 1982 statistical analysis, the court further stated that [s]ince 1850, Iowa has stood among the strong minority of states [16 out of 34 jurisdictions that have addressed the issue] holding lawyers compelled to represent indigents must receive reasonable compensation. Id. at 16 (citing Shapiro, The Enigma of the Lawyer's Duty to Serve, 55 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 735, 756-62 (1980) and further citing Hall v. Washington County, 2 Green 473, 474 (Iowa 1850), the lawyer's right to reasonable compensation was similarly defined at about the same date as also established in Indiana). See Schmidt v. Uhlenhopp, 258 Iowa 771, 140 N.W.2d 118 (1966) and Ferguson v. Pottawattamie County, 224 Iowa 516, 278 N.W. 223 (1938). [17] In McNabb, 315 N.W.2d 9, Justice Uhlenhopp, whose relationship to the Schmidt case is unrevealed, dissented in unsuccessfully contending that the burden should be upon the lawyers pro bono. Illinois has also followed a compensatory fee for comparable services in the area with a pro bono factor of a reasonable amount. People v. Devin, 123 Ill.2d 60, 121 Ill.Dec. 250, 525 N.E.2d 56 (1988) (fee increased by the Supreme Court to $60 an hour to total $3,500 as originally awarded in total amount of $1,500); People v. Ashford, 162 Ill. App.3d 212, 113 Ill.Dec. 202, 514 N.E.2d 1213 (1987); In re Petition for Fees, 148 Ill. App.3d 453, 102 Ill.Dec. 67, 499 N.E.2d 624 (1986); People v. Gangestad, 104 Ill.2d 190, 83 Ill.Dec. 566, 470 N.E.2d 986 (1984), fee in excess of statute granted and approved; People v. Devin, 93 Ill.2d 326, 67 Ill.Dec. 63, 444 N.E.2d 102 (1982); People v. Johnson, 87 Ill.2d 98, 57 Ill.Dec. 599, 429 N.E.2d 497 (1981). For an extraordinary circumstance invoking the court's inherent power to appoint counsel with necessarily included power to enter an order insuring that counsel does not suffer an intolerable sacrifice and burden for the indigent's rights to be protected, see Randolph, 219 N.E.2d 337. A case frequently cited in consideration of payment of legal fees for services to the indigent is State v. Rush, 46 N.J. 399, 217 A.2d 441 (1966). An interesting thesis was developed by the court, although the major purpose in the opinion was to secure legislative action. See State in Interest of Antini, 251 A.2d 291. The court in Rush said that membership in the bar did not carry a duty of its members to indigent individuals but only to answer a responsibility to the court when called. If that concept is accepted, the question remains whether the judiciary and this court, as members of the independent third branch of government, should impose the burden on the individual lawyers or require that society in general through the public treasury be responsible. Better answers are addressed in cases from Kentucky and New Hampshire. In Bradshaw v. Ball, 487 S.W.2d 294, 298 (Ky. 1972) (emphasis in original, that court, in first recognizing its prior history of providing no compensation, stated: No other profession in recent years has been expected to bear such a burden for services to the indigent without compensation ÔÇö not even reimbursement of necessary expenses was allowed. Therefore, we conclude as did the learned trial judge that the time has arrived to declare the burden of such service a substantial deprivation of property and constitutionally infirm. It is in the public interest that the administration of criminal justice proceed fairly, impartially, expeditiously and efficiently. Therefore, it appears elemental that the public interest in the enforcement of the criminal laws and the constitutional rights of the indigent defendant to counsel can be satisfied only by requiring the state to furnish the indigent a competent attorney whose service does not unconstitutionally deprive him of his property without just compensation. And then further recognition from No. 79 of The Federalist Papers (Rossiter edition, 1961) of the separation of power, the court then was persuaded: [T]hat it is the duty of the executive department to enforce the criminal laws, and it is the duty of the legislative department to appropriate sufficient funds to enforce the laws which they have enacted. The proper duty of the judiciary, in the constitutionally ideal sense, is neither to enforce laws nor appropriate money. The judiciary's reason for existence is to adjudicate. Id. at 299 (emphasis in original). The answer then provided, which was obviously for interim purposes, was that [a]ttorneys of this Commonwealth will no longer be required to accept court appointments to represent indigent criminal defendants, nor will they be subject to sanction if they decline such appointments. Id. at 300. See likewise Green, 470 S.W.2d 571, but compare State ex rel. Wolff v. Ruddy, 617 S.W.2d 64 (Mo. 1981), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1142, 102 S.Ct. 1000, 71 L.Ed.2d 293 (1982) and Roper, 688 S.W.2d 757. The New Hampshire Supreme Court in Smith v. State of New Hampshire, 118 N.H. 764, 394 A.2d 834 (1978), took a more effective posture by determining that the legal profession was to be relieved of the burden of uncompensated services which should pass to the citizens of the state. Reasonable compensation was considered and determined to be a matter of judicial concern alone. Since the obligation to represent indigent defendants is an obligation springing from judicial authority, so too is the determination of reasonable compensation for court-appointed attorneys a matter for judicial determination. The power to regulate officers of the court is a power inherent in the judicial branch. Implicit in that power is the authority to fix reasonable compensation rates for court-appointed attorneys. Id. 394 A.2d at 839. The court further stated: Without proper court control of court-appointed counsel, and indeed without adequate compensation for those attorneys, it might be impossible to obtain valid criminal convictions in future prosecutions of indigent defendants. In addition, if public funding is not forthcoming, the ethical duties of the bar to represent indigent defendants may have to be reevaluated by this court. In the future, adequate appropriations will have to be made in order to comply with this ruling and to ensure the continued functioning of the criminal justice system. The legislature is, of course, free to adopt an alternative method for funding the defense of indigent defendants. The courts, however, must determine the reasonable compensation for court-appointed attorneys. Id. at 839. The Missouri court in Green, 470 S.W.2d 571 took a similar perspective posture as adopted in Rush and Smith. See also Ruddy, 617 S.W.2d 64. See likewise State v. Robinson, 123 N.H. 665, 465 A.2d 1214 (1983), which addressed a maximum fee cap of $500 for misdemeanors and denied costs. In an even more recent decision, West Virginia in Jewell v. Maynard, 383 S.E.2d 536 (W. Va. 1989) declared a compensatory flat fee arrangement and capped maximum procedure unconstitutional. Existing systems for providing counsel to indigents at state expense was unconstitutional because rates of pay for indigents were so low and the volume of appointed cases so burdensome that the system took lawyer's property without just compensation. The court then held that no lawyer could be involuntarily appointed to a case unless the hourly rate of pay was at least $45 for out-of-court work and $65 per hour for in-court work. Although this floor may, at first, appear arbitrary,    these rates are the minimum compensation constitutionally permissible   . Id. at 547. The current $20 per hour rate was consequently changed to the $65 per hour in court and $45 for office time. The court included a thoughtful comment which equally applies to the quality of representation which can be expected if adequate compensation is not provided in worker's compensation cases and particularly so because of the Wyoming civil and criminal statute confining any separate contingent fee agreement between the injured worker and his attorney. Perhaps the most serious defect of the present system is that the low hourly fee may prompt an appointed lawyer to advice a client to plead guilty, although the same lawyer would advise a paying client in a similar case to demand a jury trial. Although the master did not have reliable evidence concerning this problem in West Virginia, he cited one study showing that 75 percent of defendants with court-appointed counsel plead guilty, while only 20 percent of defendants with retained counsel plead guilty. R. Hunter, Slave Labor in the Courts ÔÇö A Suggested Solution, 74 Case & Com. No. 4 at 3 (1969).       All of this becomes painfully obvious when we analyze the grossly unfair distribution of the indigent defense burden. The master found that in one county, one lawyer handles over 50 percent of the total appointed caseload. In some instances, lawyers who are in solo practice have had two-thirds of their entire caseloads allocated involuntarily to appointed cases. Of the lawyers who responded to the appointed counsel survey, some reported spending an average of 18.62 percent of their office time providing indigent representation.       The fleeing of lawyers from appointed work is now placing an unconscionable burden on the 24 percent of the bar who still accept appointments. Id. at 540-41 (emphasis in original). [18] Gilbert and Gorenfeld, The Constitution Should Protect Everyone ÔÇö Even Lawyers, 12 Pepperdine L.Rev. 75, 82-83 (1984) (citing Fresno County v. Superior Court of Fresno County, 82 Cal. App.3d 191, 146 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1978) and footnotes omitted) states: The myth that the court has the power to compel an attorney to provide free legal services was laid to rest in the state of Indiana some 130 years ago in the frequently cited case of Webb v. Baird. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected the contention that the bar, being granted special privileges, was under a noblesse oblige to provide uncompensated services. The idea of one calling enjoying peculiar privileges, and therefore being more honorable than any other, is not congenial to our institutions. And that any class should be paid for their particular services in empty honors, is an obsolete idea, belonging to another age and to a state of society hostile to liberty and equal rights.       Today's attorney occupies an even less privileged position than in the past, and thus should not be forced to dispense his services gratuitously. The cost of contributing free legal services may be prohibitive. Recent years have witnessed the removal of a number of obstacles designed by the legal profession to prevent competition. Although the special preserves of the legal profession have been reduced in recent years, the cost of running a law office has increased.          To make a decent living today, the attorney has to handle a tremendous number of cases   . Furthermore, expanding concepts in law have increased the volume of assignments, the complexity of the issues involved, and a mushrooming of the duties involved in an appointed case. See also, Comment, The Uncompensated Appointed Counsel System: A Constitutional and Social Transgression, 60 Ky. L.J. 710 (1972) and Note, The Indigent's Right to Counsel in Civil Case, 43 Fordham L.Rev. 989 (1975). An interesting statement is found in Comment, supra, 60 Ky.L.J. at 715: Just as it would seem that the services of a doctor, a plumber, or a barber are his property within the constitutional sense of the word, it should logically follow that the services of a lawyer constitute his property. For just as a grocer, a clothing store owner, and an automobile dealer sell their goods, a doctor, a plumber, a barber, and a lawyer sell their services. It would be interesting to observe the uproar if an automobile dealer were required to give free cars to indigents or a barber were required to give free haircuts. Whatever remnants remain in criminal law within the postulation of the Dillon, 346 F.2d 633 [19] concept, a lawyer's obligation to provide free legal service to non-criminal cases finds no present fertility in today's environment. Roper, 688 S.W.2d 757; Matter of Clark, 216 N.J. Super. 497, 524 A.2d 448 (1987); Menin, 359 N.Y.S.2d 721. The due process right for representation did not justify a different result from the Sixth Amendment requirement in the criminal cases. [C]ounsel is required in each case because fundamental constitutional interests are at stake. Scruggs, 545 So.2d at 912. [T]he maximum fee limit established [by statute] is a constitutionally impermissible legislative encroachment upon the judiciary's power of `ensuring adequate representation by competent counsel.' Id. at 912 (quoting Makemson, 491 So.2d at 1113). See Cunningham v. Superior Court (Ventura County), 177 Cal. App.3d 336, 222 Cal. Rptr. 854 (1986); Luke, 74 Cal. Rptr. 771, narcotic commitment; and Bedford, 447 P.2d 193, involuntary hospitalization. See also Note, Court Appointment of Attorneys in Civil Cases: The Constitutionality of Uncompensated Legal Assistance, 81 Colum.L.Rev. 366 (1981). In confining this decision to the special civil case where constitutionally guaranteed rights to assistance of counsel does exist, lawyers equally with doctors under the Wyoming Constitution cannot involuntarily be required to provide sustenance of career and ability of a lifetime's work on a donated basis. This decision is based on an independent application of the Wyoming state statutes and constitution and reference to federal precedent is not controlling and provides only relevant authority by factual comparison. [20] This court should not interpret the Wyoming statute to require an unconstitutional result by a finding that the attorney may either not be paid at all or may be paid an unreasonable fee. Until W.S. XX-XX-XXX is repealed with whatever results that might provide, e.g., uncontrolled contingent fees, etc., we would apply a construction to W.S. XX-XX-XXX(d) requiring both availability of counsel and reasonable compensation to the provider of the legal services in equivalency to compensation for services provided by the health care industry.