Judge Orders Rate Hike for Assigned Counsel in New York City

On February 5, 2003, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lucindo Suarez issued an order finding that the State of New York's failure to increase the rates of compensation for court-appointed lawyers in New York City violates constitutional and statutory rights to meaningful and effective representation and obstructs the judiciary's ability to function. New York County Lawyers' Association v. The State of New York, 102987/00. Since 1985, lawyers representing indigent adults in Criminal Court and parties in Family Court have been paid statutory rates of $25 an hour for work out of court and $40 an hour for work in court.

The order included a declaratory judgment that the rate-setting portions of the statutes are unconstitutional as applied in New York City and a permanent injunction directing the State and City to compensate assigned counsel at $90 per hour for both in-court and out-of-court work until the Legislature modifies the statutes or upon further order of the Court. Like the preliminary injunction he issued last May, Justice Suarez' permanent injunction requires New York City to raise the rates for all indigent criminal representations and the representation of adults in Family Court. The order also applies to the state, which is responsible for funding the representation of children in Family Court proceedings in New York City.

Davis Polk & Wardwell represented the New York County Lawyers Association pro bono. At a 16-day bench trial last summer, testimony was heard from 41 witnesses, including expert witnesses Robert L. Spangenberg, President of The Spangenberg Group, Norman Lefstein, Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus of Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis and Jane M. Spinak, Edward Ross Aranow Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Clinical Programs at Columbia Law School.

In the order, Justice Suarez wrote his intervention was required because the "pusillanimous posturing and procrastination of the executive and legislative branches" have impaired "the judiciary's ability to function." He granted all of the relief sought by NYCLA, and found the evidence presented persuasive "beyond a reasonable doubt."

For more information contact tsg@spangenberggroup.com