Opinion ID: 2521476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: a special master's quest for an attorney's fee presents an ancillary claim

Text: ¶ 2 The court has apparently adopted the mistaken view that a special master's compensation quest is not fit for classification as a claim. I disagree. It is as much a court claim as any other. It falls under the rubric of ancillary claims. Our pronouncement in Rand v. Nash [2] empowers a judge to appoint an arm of the court to secure needed services. One so appointed has an ancillary claim for the value of services performed. [3] A dispute over liability for the services may be treated by a court as ancillary to a case. [4] The special master's counsel-fee quest for trial-related legal services stands preserved here by his timely nisi prius request and by his later demand, made both in the petition in error and the brief, for an appeal-related attorney's fee.