Court Opinion

ID: 9717552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:05:50.858171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.975318
License: Public Domain

SCHULTZ, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority opinion except the portion allowing attorney fees for the *571preparation of the certiorari action that was filed in this court. I would not allow fees when the attorney was not appointed by the court to perform the service. The district court denied this portion of the fees because Mr. Lunde was not appointed to represent Jerry D. Skinner in the certiorari action, not because the application for appointment was made to the wrong court.
The client’s application for appointment of counsel should precede preparation of the action except in eases of emergency. Generally, this application should be filed in the district court. If the application does not precede the preparation of the action, the court will not have a choice in the selection of counsel. Choice of counsel is important to assure the appointment of competent counsel at the lowest cost to the county. Plaintiff in this case by his action deprived the court of a choice of counsel in the preparation of the action. It is not harsh to deny the fees under these circumstances.