Opinion ID: 2395038
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: County Fiscal Court Involvement Plans

Text: The most basic breakdown of the numerous schemes involves whether or not a county, through its fiscal court, chooses to become involved by implementing a local plan of representation under KRS 31.160. [4] A county may establish a local office to provide representation, e.g., Fayette County Legal Aid. KRS 31.160(1)(b); KRS 31.170(1). A county fiscal court may choose to provide such services by contracting with one or more attorneys, or a nonprofit organization or association of attorneys, e.g., Washington County Public Defenders Association. KRS 31.160(1)(a). See also, Commonwealth v. Theodore H. Lavit and James H. Abell, 882 S.W.2d 678 (1994). A county may also render services by employing a combination of these alternatives. KRS 31.160(1)(c). Finally, under KRS 31.160(2) and (3), a county may join with one or more counties in its judicial district or elsewhere or with any cities located within said county or counties in providing the representation. When a county fiscal court elects local involvement, the procedures by which the program it chooses shall be administered are set forth in KRS 31.160 through KRS 31.240. With all such plans, the statute affirmatively invests administrative oversight authority in the DPA to review and then approve, deny, or modify the submitted plan. KRS 31.050. This is an important point, for it illustrates the principle expressed in Bradshaw , and reaffirmed in the instant case, that the duty of providing counsel is in executive function relating to the enforcement of criminal laws. See, Ex Parte Farley, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 617, 620 (1978) (The [Department] of Public Advocacy is, in fine, an agency of the executive branch of State government . . .). Finally, once a local plan is approved by DPA, KRS 31.050(2) provides that DPA may allot a sufficient sum . . . for the purpose of assisting the said plan.