Opinion ID: 1195135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conflict of interest resulting from minimal compensation

Text: Taylor also suggests that Levine's minimal compensation created a per se conflict of interest preventing him from giving Taylor adequate assistance of counsel. Taylor argues that flat fee compensation encourages lawyers to spend as little time on a case as possible and to promote plea bargains. We acknowledge that the problem of inadequate resources for defending capital cases creates significant potential for harm. [2] But Taylor has failed to allege, let alone identify, anything in this particular case to support the theory that his defense suffered. [3] At no time did Levine say, We can't afford to have you psychologically tested, or anything of the kind. Moreover, Levine personally had substantial income from other sources during the period he represented Taylor and knew he could obtain extra compensation from the county if needed. Taylor did not introduce any evidence regarding other demands on Levine's time or point to inadequacies in the time spent on this case. Without this information, we must accept the lower court's assessment that Levine's income and resources did not affect his strategy and efforts in this case. Hence, under the conflict of interest standard discussed in part II above, Taylor has failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest.