Court Opinion

ID: 9471387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:31:12.906626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:23.278086
License: Public Domain

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur but write separately to note an aspect of this case not discussed by the majority. I address Lee’s bitter complaints about the fees paid to counsel appointed to represent indigents in federal court. See also Darrell E. Lee Law Office v. State, 99 Wash.2d 270, 661 P.2d 136 (1983).
Lee says that reasonable compensation is necessary to ensure adequate representation of indigents. He contends that financial hardship will cause appointed counsel to represent clients less diligently. He says that inadequate compensation constitutes a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility, by making the appointed attorney’s financial interests adverse to those of the client.
Lee’s contentions fly in the face of the ethical standards of the legal profession.
When a lawyer is appointed by a court ... to undertake representation of a person unable to obtain counsel [for financial reasons], he should not seek to be excused from undertaking the representation except for compelling reasons.
Wash.Code of Professional Responsibility EC 2-29.
He has ignored the oath taken on admission to the Washington State Bar:
I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any man’s cause for lucre or malice.
Wash.Rev.Code § 2.48.210.
An appointed attorney’s financial interests do not outweigh the interests of indigent clients in legal representation.