Compensation conundrum

Increased compensation for court-appointed lawyers: a solution in search of a problem?
Or, source of a new problem?
Maybe both.

Last year the General Assembly, after years of urging, increased the amount it would pay lawyers who agreed to represent poor defendants. Lawyers could apply to the state for additional compensation if they could show the case re-quired extra effort.

Raising the state’s pay was supposed to help solve two problems.
First, there was the issue of plain old fairness.

Many, if not most attorneys who represent indigent clients say they put in more hours than they are compensated for. The imbalance can be particularly acute for serious cases — such as murder — where the stakes are highest.

Second was the goal of encouraging more lawyers to take on indigent clients, or encouraging those already in the system to spend more time on tough cases if needed. Stories had circulated about un-prepared lawyers flubbing important cases, failing to do the heavy lifting necessary to fully represent their clients.

Even as supporters of increased compensation (including this newspaper) argued that the legislature should raise payments, some lawyers were taking issue with the notion that court-assigned lawyers were relaxing their efforts because the pay wasn’t worth it.
Lawyers were dedicated to justice, and gave each case their all, replied these critics.

Still, critics also said that for justice’s sake, court-appointed lawyers should receive more money.
Now, a year after additional money was made available, lawyers have applied for only a fraction of it.
Several local attorneys say the red tape is just not worth the hassle. They have to fill out several sheets of paperwork — and then the documents may be returned for minor oversights, forcing them to start the process all over again.

Others complain that the red tape is a waste of money. A program that didn’t require so much bureaucracy would be a better use of tax money — and better and easier for the lawyers as well.

Complaints about the new system are anecdotal. We don’t know how widespread lawyers’ dissatisfaction might be.
But in addition to anecdotes, there is one telling statistic: Out of $8.2 million made available to supplement lawyers’ compensation, only $1 million has been paid. For whatever reason, attorneys aren’t applying for the money.
If they aren’t applying for the money, then perhaps additional compensation wasn’t as important to them as many of us believed.

At the same time, if the new system is overly bureaucratic, then it is a waste of money, consuming tax funds in administrative overhead and exacting an opportunity cost. Every dollar spent on overhead would be a dollar that is no longer available for the real purpose of the program.

Perhaps both statements are true. Lawyers don’t “need” the extra money, while lawyers and the rest of us taxpayers are also ill served by any cumbersome bureaucracy.
Only a year into the new system, it’s time to reconsider whether that system is serving all our needs — for laywers, clients and taxpayers alike.