Court Opinion

ID: 9855711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:29:40.897616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:23.162242
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in sustension of the writ and in all of the opinion of the court majority except the part relating to charging the public with attorney fees. I think that part of the opinion involves a legislative function. My views are stated in Webster County Board of Supervisors v. Flattery, 268 N.W.2d 869, 878-80 (Iowa 1978) (Uhlenhopp, J., concurring specially), and English v. Missildine, 311 N.W.2d 292, 294-96 (Iowa 1981) (Uhlenhopp, J., concurring specially).
Each year the Iowa District Court has a large number of contempt cases of various kinds. In some cases incarceration is not necessary; the contemner performs under the threat of the proceeding, or after a lecture by the court, or following the levy of a fine. But in many cases incarceration is required because of the aggravated contempt or in order to get results. Numerous of these contemners are indigent, especially in the domestic relations cases.
The problem is not whether contemners are entitled to counsel in the incarceration cases. They clearly are entitled to counsel. The problem is, who is going to stand the expense of counsel for indigent contemners? Traditionally the bar has represented these individuals, largely pro bono. In some places private or public legal aid organizations have-done so. Now, however, without a statute, the court holds that payment is to *18be made from public funds. These cases are numerous, counsel will be entitled to full undiscounted fees under section 815.7 which the court cites, and in the aggregate we are talking about a large amount of public money.
As I pointed out in Flattery, the elected legislators have the burden of levying taxes and the corresponding right of saying how the revenue is spent. To the present time the legislature has not enacted a statute authorizing counsel fees for indigent con-temners. I would hold that the burden of representing those individuals remains where it has always been, on the bar, unless and until the General Assembly enacts legislation providing otherwise. I do not find anything in the Constitution which authorizes us to appropriate public funds for representation in these cases. Just as we require the other two branches of government to observe the separation of powers doctrine with care on their part, we should observe the doctrine scrupulously on our own part.
A substantial majority of jurisdictions, including federal courts, Dolan v. United States, 351 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1965); 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); Miller v. Pleasure, 296 F.2d 283 (2nd Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 1592, 8 L.Ed.2d 830 (1962); Nabb v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 173 (1S64), deny the right to attorney fees from the public treasury in the absence of statute. Annot., 21 A.L.R.3d 819, 822-24 (1968). This court has allowed such compensation in criminal and juvenile proceedings where statutes authorized appointment of attorneys for the accused — a situation we do not have here. Hall v. Washington County, 2 Greene 473 (Iowa 1850); Ferguson v. Pottawattamie County, 224 Iowa 516, 278 N.W. 223 (1938). In Hall the district court appointed J. C. Hall, an attorney, to represent a pauper who was charged with murder. The court acted pursuant to a statute which provided: “The court shall assign counsel to defend the prisoner in case he cannot procure counsel himself.” 2 Greene at 474. After the criminal trial, the attorney sought his fee from the county. This court used language which might be construed as espousing the minority position. The fact of the matter, however, was that a statute authorized appointment of counsel. This court stated:
Mr. Hall was duly appointed. He acted by authority of the court. The court acted in obedience to the express mandate of the statute. Here, we think is a case of statutory obligation, fixing a liability on the proper county to pay for the services of the attorney. The service rendered was not voluntary on the part of the court or the attorney, but it was in obedience to law. The court was bound to comply with the requirement of the statute; and the attorney, as an officer of the court, could not refuse to act. Where an act of service is performed in obedience to direct mandate of statutory law, under the direction of a tribunal to which the enforcement of that law is committed, reasonable compensation to the person who performs that service is a necessary incident; otherwise, the arm of the law will be too short to accomplish its designs. If attorneys, as officers of the court, have obligations under which they must act professionally, they also have rights to which they are entitled, and which they may justly claim in common with other men in the business of life. Among these rights, that of reasonable compensation for services rendered in their profession is justly to be considered. The exercise of judicial power, in order to effectuate the common and statute law, frequently becomes necessary, and must exist incidentally. By virtue of such power, auditors, commissioners, masters in chancery, &c, are appointed and act, and proper compensation is awarded to them. All the officers of the court are recognized as being on just consideration entitled to fees for official services performed. All that has been done by the law is merely to limit them in amount. Why should the attorney at law be made an exception to this general principle? We see no good reason for it. His time, *19labor and professional skill are his own. He should not be required to bestow them gratuitously at the will of the court, any more than should any other officer. But it is enough here to say that, whilst the statute requires the court to appoint counsel in a case like this, it is silent on the subject of pay for his services. It leaves that matter to be disposed of upon the principles of the practice of the common law. There certainly is no legal exception as to an attorney, so as to distinguish his case from any other functionary. In deciding the case of Whicher v. Cedar Co.,1 the court took the ground, “that there is no statute providing for compensation for services rendered in such cases. If the board of county commissioners choose to compensate an attorney for such services, we see no objection. But this is a matter left to their discretion.” We cannot see how this position could operate in denial of the plaintiff’s right of action. It seems to be admitted there, that the attorney was entitled to pay for his services. That the commissioners had proper authority to allow his fees; but it is decided that they might make the allowance or not, in their discretion. This, we think, is untenable. If the attorney was entitled to his compensation, under the law, and if the commissioners were authorized to pay him for his services, they had and could exercise no discretionary power. They are officially existent only by operation of the statute law. They could only act under its authority. In this case, the right of an action in the plaintiff does not arise from an express contract; but it is necessarily given by the statute. The statute authorizes the appointment of counsel, in de-fence of a pauper when accused of crime, in view of the right of that counsel to compensation for the service rendered, in obedience, to that law, as an incident necessarily attaches a liability for the services to the county which is properly chargeable with the maintenance of the proceeding. This view of the case is sustained by the supreme court of Vermont. Wolcott v. Wolcott, 4 Vt., 37; Vermillion Co. v. Knight, 1 Scam., 97.
In the case of Whicher v. Cedar Co., the court adverts to the necessity of legislative interference in order to provide for compensation of this kind. We are of the opinion, that the act requiring the court to appoint counsel for the prisoner is quite sufficient for that purpose, as we have shown. If it were not, however, when the duty enjoined had been performed by the counsel, his right to his pay for it had accrued. The prisoner being a pauper, the liability attached to the county of which he was a citizen. The right of the attorney to compensation was complete, without further legislative enactment. This is not a case of voluntary services. It is a fundamental rule of right, established by the constitution of the United States, “that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” The service was required by competent legal authority, which, having been rendered, the attorney is entitled to his pay for it.
Id. at 476-78.
In Ferguson the juvenile court appointed attorneys to represent juveniles, acting under section 3631 of the Code of 1935: “The court may, at any time after the filing of the petition, appoint an attorney or other suitable person to represent and appear for said child.” At the conclusion of the juvenile proceedings the court allowed the attorneys their fees of the county, which refused to pay. This court, relying principally on Hall, allowed the fees of the county, saying:
It is true that section 3631 makes no provision as to the amount of the compensation to be allowed for the services performed. In this case the court appointing the attorneys for the delinquents was acting in obedience to express statutory authority, and, as such, an obligation arose on the part of the county to pay for the services rendered. These services were not rendered voluntarily, but in obe*20dience to statute. Under such circumstances an obligation arises on the part of the county to pay a reasonable compensation therefor.

In the case at bar the court had full statutory authority to make the appointments. The services under the appointments were performed by the attorneys so appointed, and they are therefore entitled to reasonable compensation therefor.
Id. 224 Iowa at 518, 519-20, 278 N.W. at 224, 225.
This court did not hold that public funds may be used to pay attorneys, without a statute authorizing appointment of attorneys, in Schmidt v. Uhlenhopp, 258 Iowa 771, 140 N.W.2d 118 (1966). In that case a statute existed which authorized both appointment of attorneys and payment of their fees. §§ 775.4, 775.5, The Code 1962, as amended by 61 G.A., ch. 449, § 1 (1965). The question in the case was whether Schmidt was in fact indigent. This court held on the record that he was.
I agree that a statute authorizing a court to appoint an attorney for an indigent facing incarceration demonstrates legislative intent that the public is liable for a fee. In the contempt situation, however, the General Assembly has not seen fit to enact such a statute.
The courts cannot give themselves legislative power to expend public funds for attorney fees by construing the Constitution to prohibit incarceration of unrepresented indigents. That course of reasoning would mean that when courts hold constitutional due process requires certain procedures, as courts frequently do, the courts could fund those procedures because the Constitution requires them. Construction of the Constitution is a judicial function, but the second step, funding the constitutionally required measures, is a legislative function. Indigents charged with felonies in federal court have long had a constitutional right to attorneys, but for generations, and until Congress acted, those attorneys received no public funds.
In these times of high overhead, pro bono representation of indigent contemners places a heavy burden on the bar, at least where public or private legal aid organizations do not exist. A persuasive argument can be made to the General Assembly that the burden ought to be alleviated, perhaps by adding responsibility for representation to the functions of public defenders. That is a policy matter, however, for the legislative branch.
Courts naturally desire to solve problems completely which come to them. Under our system of separated powers, however, some problems coming to the courts necessitate the involvement of the other branches of government. The contempt proceeding is such an area.
McGIVERIN, J., joins in this dissent.

. 1 Greene 217 (Iowa 1848).