Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorney
defendantattorneystatuteappealtrialappellant

Related Cases

Sheppard & White, P.A. v. City of Jacksonville, 827 So.2d 925, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S739

Facts

In the first case, Sheppard & White, P.A. was appointed as conflict counsel for an indigent defendant in a capital case and sought compensation at a rate of $140 per hour, but was awarded $40 per hour based on an administrative order. In the second case, attorney Kevin Shirley was awarded $100 per hour for his work on a capital case, but the county contested this, leading to a ruling that he was entitled to only $50 per hour. The Supreme Court consolidated these cases to address the compensation rates for appointed counsel.

In Sheppard & White, an attorney with the Jacksonville law firm of Sheppard & White, P.A. was appointed by the trial court as conflict counsel to represent an indigent defendant in his direct appeal of a sentence of death.

Issue

What is the appropriate hourly rate of compensation for court-appointed conflict counsel representing indigent defendants in capital cases?

IS THE FIXED RATE OF $50 PER HOUR FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEY'S FEE CONFISCATORY WHEN APPLIED IN A CAPITAL CASE REQUIRING 550 HOURS OF ATTORNEY'S TIME.

Rule

The court held that the hourly rate for appointed counsel must not negatively impact the right of indigent clients to effective assistance of counsel and that compensation should reflect the prevailing hourly rate for similar representation in the circuit.

Section 925.036, Florida Statutes (1997) states in pertinent part: (1) An attorney appointed pursuant to s. 925.035 or s. 27.53 shall, at the conclusion of the representation, be compensated at an hourly rate fixed by the chief judge or senior judge of the circuit in an amount not to exceed the prevailing hourly rate for similar representation rendered in the circuit; however, such compensation shall not exceed the maximum fee limits established by this section.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented regarding the hourly rates and determined that the $40 rate in the Sheppard & White case did not impair the ability of attorneys to provide effective representation. In contrast, the court found that the circumstances in the Shirley case warranted a higher rate due to extraordinary circumstances, justifying the $100 per hour compensation.

In examining the relationship between an indigent defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel in capital cases and the amount of compensation his counsel receives, we have previously stated: It must be remembered that an indigent defendant's right to competent and effective representation, not the attorney's right to reasonable compensation, gives rise to the necessity of exceeding the statutory maximum fee cap [on remuneration for counsel representing indigent appellants in capital cases].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court approved the decision in Sheppard & White, affirming the $50 hourly rate, and quashed the decision in Shirley, instructing that he receive compensation at the rate of $100 per hour.

We approve the decision of the district court awarding fees based on a rate of $50 per hour and answer the certified question in the negative.

Who won?

The City of Jacksonville prevailed in the Sheppard & White case, as the court upheld the $40 hourly rate, while Kevin Shirley prevailed in his case, receiving the $100 hourly rate.

The City of Jacksonville was ordered to pay the $29,864.05 in legal fees and costs by the trial court, with compensation for attorney and law clerk time being based on a rate of $40 per hour pursuant to a local administrative order.

You must be