Court-Appointed Attorneys
Allyson Jones
November 14, 2000

While in law school law students are encouraged to decide what type of law that they want to practice. Most investigate the possibilities of becoming an associate in a small or large firm, a government attorney, a prosecutor or a public defender, or an attorney in the public interest sector for either a non-profit organization or a legal aid office.

In addition to the typical job options, which the career services offices typically encourage students to investigate, there are several types of non-traditional jobs. One such non-traditional option is court-appointed attorney work.

Court appointments can help an attorney who is just beginning a solo practice. Once appointed a court appointed attorney can choose the number and the type of cases to accept. If the attorney is good enough to be appointed consistently, he/she might even find it to be full time employment. This type of work also might be ideal for a seasoned attorney who wants to work only part-time in order to pursue other opportunities or goals.

There are a variety of cases that involve court-appointed attorneys. They may defend the accused in the initial trial, help convicts appeal their guilty verdicts or sentences (including death sentences), promote the interests of children in cases of abuse or neglect, or represent the interests of parents in abuse or neglect cases. Court appointed attorneys also represent the interests of people with disabilities or those who are or who may become institutionalized for mental impairments.

Such diverse populations require the attorney to be skillful and dedicated if the attorney is to represent the client in the client's best interest.

Each state and the federal government chooses the cases for which a court will appoint an attorney to represent a client. Available opportunities may vary widely. For example, the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida only uses court-appointed attorneys to represent indigent defendants in felony, misdemeanor, traffic and juvenile delinquency cases in Orange County when the Public Defender withdraws due to a conflict of interest.(1) In some jurisdictions the court may appoint an attorney to represent all indigent defendants in criminal cases because there is no public defender system.

Some court systems provide that in certain situations the courts must appoint attorneys to represent the indigent in certain other cases.(2)

This paper presents work as a court-appointed attorney as a viable alternative to other types of legal work. The paper stresses the economic aspects of the work but also discusses other important and related issues.

How does the court appointed attorney system work? There are primarily two types of systems. In one, a coordinator assigns an attorney to each case.(3) In the other, the court maintains a list of attorneys who either contracted or volunteered to be court appointed attorneys.(4) Those who volunteer to accept court appointments in the second system are not always required to meet specific guidelines to stay on the appointment list.

Typically the rate of pay for a court-appointed attorney is quite a bit lower than that received by an attorney working for a firm. Because of the fact that legislatures control the amount of compensation paid to court-appointed attorneys, there are very few methods of increasing revenue for the practice. For a court-appointed attorney, who is dedicated to the field and who wants to make a viable practice out of the work, the most effective way to increase revenue may be to decrease overhead costs rather than increasing work hours.

There are several different ways to decrease overhead but it does require the attorney to be creative in the way that he/she looks at cutting expenditures. Some examples of cutting overhead costs would be to work out of a home office, to do your own secretarial work or bring documents which need to be typed to a typing agency rather than employing a secretary. Other ways to decrease overhead costs are to use public law libraries for information rather than collecting your own library, share resources, like fax and copy machines, as well as other costly items such as secretaries, receptionists, office space and fax/computer lines with other sole practitioners. For an attorney simply who can not cut enough expenses to keep afloat but who still wishes to accept court appointments, one solution is to mix the court-appointed practice with private clients who are willing to pay more than the statutorily-created rates.

History of Appointed Attorneys

The origins of court appointed attorneys for indigent clients are unknown and a source of much debate.(5) As Thomas Liotti writes, "[s]ome commentators claimed to have discovered the roots of appointed counsel in Roman history. However, other commentators question the support for this premise."(6) Regardless of whether the debate about the origin of the first court-appointed attorneys ever is won, and if we never discover the actual origins of the practice, we can trace the history of the practice in this country. Although there is some debate about the history of court-appointed attorneys in the United States, we do know a lot about the origins of court-appointed attorneys in the United States. It is clear that court-appointed attorneys have existed in the United States since the country's beginning.(7) The colonies differed in their approach to court-appointed counsel for the indigent. Some colonies recognized a broad right to counsel and other colonies provided only a narrow right.(8) The first congress passed a statute requiring the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only.(9) Additionally, Liotti reports that "In 1964, Congress enacted the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) which regulates the appointment of counsel to indigent defendants. The CJA lists the conditions in which the a defendant may receive court appointed counsel, provides a fee schedule for appointed counsel, and orders each district court, with the approval of the Circuit Judicial Council, to operate a plan that insures representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation."(10)

Other authors cite the landmark decision of Gideon v. Wainright as the case that began the current system of appointed attorneys in the United States.(11) At a minimum, Gideon affirmed the fact that indigent defendants are constitutionally entitled to the right to legal counsel.(12)

Although the court-appointed attorney system fulfills a great need in our society, there are problems with the system. One such problem is that many claim court-appointed attorneys provide ineffective assistance of council to those people that they represent. Some blame the inadequate funding and minimal compensation of court-appointed attorneys for the inadequate representation of indigent clients. Many speculate that inadequate representation of defendants or other types of indigent appointments occurs because the compensation for the work is either so low that competent attorneys do not want the work or because the appointed attorneys are so underpaid that they cannot afford to devote the required time to the cases.(13) This topic will be discussed more in depth further in the paper.

How much does it pay?

Jurisdictions typically decide to pay their court-appointed attorneys by one of two methods. Some are paid a set hourly rate for hours worked. Others receive a pre-set per-case or a flat fee payment. For example, Orange County Florida, pays its court-appointed contract attorneys on a per case basis and those without the contract on an hourly basis.(14) Those attorneys who agree to contract with the court agree to the set per-case compensation amount which the court sets. If the attorney does not contract with the court then the attorney must be paid according to administrative order guidelines.

The rate of pay for a court-appointed attorney is usually set by statute. The rate varies from the federal to the state system, from state to state, and sometimes even from county to county. Depending on where you are appointed as council, you earn more or less depending on the jurisdiction. Rates of pay vary based greatly whether the court sets the rate by the hour or on a per-case basis. The amount of pay can also vary depending on the level of the crime, the type of case, the age of the person represented, and in criminal cases whether the case is the initial trial stage or an appeal or other stage of representation.

Typically the statutes that set a flat fee per case adjust the rate of pay based on the type of case. For example, Pasco County Florida pays contract attorneys $700.00 per defendant in a non-capital felony case and only $300.00 per defendant for a misdemeanor.(15)

In this particular jurisdiction the fee is per defendant, which means that even if the defendant is charged with more than one charge, the attorney receives the same rate of pay for the case unless the attorney represents the defendant in more than one trial.(16) In the case of two or more trials, the attorney is paid $700.00 for each non-capital felony trial completed and $300.00 for each misdemeanor trial completed.(17)

Juvenile cases pay less than cases in which the attorneys represent adults. In this district, cases in juvenile court are compensated at a lower rate, only $250.00 per case.(18) If the juvenile is prosecuted as an adult then the attorney is paid $450.00 per case, unless the case goes to trial more than once.(19) In the case of additional trials, the attorney is paid $250.00 for each complete juvenile court trial, $450.00 for the first criminal court trial and $700.00 for each additional criminal court trial.(20) In addition to these basic fees, the attorney can be compensated for various expenses such as out-of-state travel, photocopying depositions in a multiple defendant case, necessary copy fees incurred from a third source, and telephone expenses (limited to $10.00 absent unusual circumstances).(21)

The rate of pay also varies depending on whether the court-appointed attorney represents a person in their initial trial or on appeal. Court-appointed attorneys for appeals of cases in Pasco and Pinellas Counties Florida are paid $600.00 per appeal for non-capital felony cases. For capital cases attorneys are paid $50.00 per hour for out-of-court services and $60.00 per hour for in-court services up to a maximum of $2000.00.(22) For capital cases, the circuit compensates the court-appointed attorney for court reporter expenses at depositions.(23) This circuit pays a flat-fee of $250.00 for appeals for county to circuit court,(24) and a flat-fee of $450.00 for appeals of juvenile delinquency cases.(25)

In a similar manner, the rates of pay for hourly work also vary widely from state to state. State courts pay differently for the same type of representation. Further, some states place caps on the amount of money they will pay an attorney for a certain type of case regardless of the amount of time actually spent working on the case while some do not. A 1996 review of the court-appointed attorney program of the Fifth Circuit of Florida reported that the appointed counsel were compensated at an hourly rate of no more than $50.00 per hour with a maximum cap of $3,500 for cases appearing before a magistrate in which one or more felonies are charged, $1,000 for representation of a client charged with a misdemeanor appearing in district court or in front of a magistrate, and $2,500 for a direct appeal of a felony, excluding expenses.(26) Theses maximum limits do not apply in death penalty cases, in habeas corpus cases, or in federal capital prosecution cases.(27) In these types of cases, the judge sets the hourly rate somewhere between $75 and $125. per hour.(28) All of these fee maximums can be waived when additional payment is necessary to provide fair compensation for the attorney.(29) The circuit will compensate appointed attorneys for expenses that are reasonably incurred and necessary adequately to represent the client.(30) General office expenses and overhead, court filing fees and personal items are not considered reimbursable expenses under the statute.(31) The statute makes it clear that all costs incurred should be limited to the least amount of costs possible for the necessary representation expenses.(32)

A review of the funding of court-appointed attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants in capital cases found the pay of these attorneys to be wholly inadequate. Alabama limits out-of court preparation pay to $20.00 per hour up to $1,000.00, regardless of the time actually spent on the case.(33) Some rural areas of Texas only compensate court-appointed attorneys $800.00 for capital cases and the author states that generally the hourly rate of pay is $50.00 per hour or less(34)

In comparison, New York Federal Courts compensate appointed attorneys at a rate of $75.00 per hour and New York State Courts pay between $25.00 to $40.00 an hour for out-of-court time and in-court-time respectively.(35)

In Iowa, statutes provide that non-contract attorneys who are appointed by the court to "represent any person charged with a crime in this state, seeking post-conviction relief, against whom a contempt action is pending, appealing a criminal conviction, appealing denial of post-conviction relief, or subject to a proceeding under chapter 229A, or to serve as counsel for any person or guardian ad litem for any child in juvenile court shall be entitled to reasonable compensation and expenses."(36) The statute describes this reasonable compensation as $60.00 per hour for a class A felony, $55.00 for class B felonies, $50.00 per hour for all other offenses.(37) The statute compensates attorneys for out-of-pocket expenses for "any sums as are necessary for investigations in the interest of justice and the cost of obtaining the transcript of the trial record and briefs if an appeal is filed."(38)

Recently, in Iowa, 2 separate attorneys, who had been appointed to represent persons in juvenile court, brought suit claiming that the statutes requiring mandatory caps on compensation for the maximum payment of court appointed attorneys is unconstitutional(39). These attorneys claim that the statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by denying the equal protection of laws to indigent defendants(40), the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by denying indigents substantive and procedural due process through denying these persons effective representation,(41) and Iowa Statute §815.7 because the limit does not guarantee reasonable compensation of court appointed attorneys as required by that statute.(42)

The court first decided that the plaintiffs did have standing to sue even though they are not seeking personal relief, but rather for relief for all those who have court-appointed attorneys(43). The plaintiffs claim that due to the caps on the compensation that they are under-paid for their court-appointed work, for example, the plaintiffs claim that their office overhead amounts to an average of 50% of every $100.00 earned in gross income. The plaintiffs argue that if they only receive $60.00 per hour, their figures still are based on being paid on $100.00 per hour so that for every hour of court-appointed work, the attorney only nets $10.00 per hour after overhead payments.(44) The court reasoned that the plaintiffs did not prove indigent defendants were actually at a disadvantage by the caps on compensation or the low payments.(45)

The court further reasoned that all attorneys are required by the code of professional responsibility to provide effective representation of their clients regardless of the amount of compensation.(46) The court found that the fee payments are not "per se unreasonable" despite the fact they may be low and that indigent defendants are not prejudiced by representation compensated at a lower rate(47). Therefore, the court found that the caps on the amount of compensation for court-appointed attorneys does not violate the constitutional rights of either the court-appointed attorneys or the indigent defendants.(48)

Methods of Funding Appointed Attorneys

There are different methods of funding court-appointed attorneys. In most jurisdictions payment comes from the states. In others, the counties pay the expenses of the court-appointed attorneys.(49) The benefit to state payments is that counties with small budgets will not be as drastically affected by high use of court-appointed attorneys.

One author who recognizes a problem with different funding schemes of court-appointed attorneys says that some counties use a contract system which awards a private practice attorneys all of the indigent defenses for the county for the lowest bid.(50) This encourages appointed attorneys to lower the amounts they will charge the courts in order to come up with a competitive bid to secure the contract. These counties do not allow for extra funds for purposes of investigation or experts, and the author notes that these types of programs are known for poor representation of defendants.(51)

Payment Schemes: A look at the Advantages and Disadvantages

Payment on a per case basis and the application of caps on hourly fees can limit the quality of representation the indigent client receives. An attorney, who knows that she will not be compensated for all of the time spent preparing for a particularly difficult case or trial, may be more likely to spend less time on the case than the case actually needs to be litigated in a manner that ensures the client is effectively represented. Some authors view the lack of funds available for compensation of court-appointed attorneys and public defenders as an indicator that indigent clients are not receiving competent representation.(52) One author states that: "[i]nadequate funding has created a situation wherein overburdened defense counsel cannot possibly provide competent representation to all of the clients they are assigned to represent. Counsel who have committed their skills, energy, and careers to representing indigent defendants cannot be expected to tolerate circumstances where they are compelled to render the ineffective assistance of counsel."(53) Private court-appointed attorneys have attempted to increase funding for their work through different methods, including attempting to unite to strike to achieve their goal.(54) This attempt to increase funding was stopped by the United States Supreme Court.(55) One author quotes a recent study which claims that "'[v]irtually no assigned counsel program in the country is adequately funded. In fact, the funding situation nationally is frequently and accurately characterized as a crisis."'(56) The author goes on to say that one reason that the indigent clients receive inadequate representation is that the appointed attorney who relies on the court appointments to fund his practice take on more clients than he can handle in order to increase revenue.(57) This means that the attorney takes on more than he can handle and in turn, the indigent client suffers at the hands of the overworked attorney.

One other aspect of the cap on hourly funding effecting representation for clients is that qualified counsel are not willing to take on cases because they are paid more to work elsewhere.(58)

One study in Oregon found that "after average overhead expenses in Oregon, an attorney doing only court appointed indigent defense work would have a net annual income of $72.00."(59) A similar Virginia State Bar study found that "the effective hourly rate that was paid to a survey sample of Virginia attorneys representing indigents in capital cases at trial was approximately $13.00."(60)

The problems have become so severe that some indigent clients are not being represented adequately. One author noted that:

An evaluation of the assigned counsel program in Massachusetts found that due to inadequate compensation, 36% of the attorneys failed to perform vital and basic tasks such as interviewing witnesses, investigating the facts and filing appropriate pre-trial motions. As the Florida Supreme Court noted, the adage 'you get what you pay for' does indeed apply to legal representation.(61)
Adequate Representation

Some speculate that because court-appointed attorneys are underpaid for their work that the attorneys are actually encouraged to do a poor job representing their clients. The poor quality of representation is encouraged due to the fact that court-appointed attorneys are mainly paid for their work either hourly or per case completed. An attorney who needs more money to survive than the small amounts paid by the court are actually encouraged to take on more cases so that their income increases. Because of the inherent limitation on the number of hours in a day, the more cases that an attorney works on, the less time the attorney can spend per case. A court-appointed attorney may even take on more cases than he can realistically handle, in order to earn a livable income, and this, in turn, leads to shoddy representation of the client.

As a court-appointed attorney it is important to keep in mind that it is imperative to give those who you are representing the best quality of representation possible. Attorneys must keep in mind that not only are they bound to the code of professional responsibility, but also, the attorney must remember that they are representing people who are in very vulnerable positions because they are poor and unable to afford to hire an attorney to represent them. Some speculate that those charged with crimes can be vindicated if they receive quality representation. On the flip side, it holds true that some represented by inadequate attorneys are found guilty due to their court-appointed attorney's poor quality of representation. One instance where the lack of adequate representation is especially glaring is in the realm of those who are defending offenders of capital crimes.

There are many horror stories of court-appointed attorneys neglecting their duties and ultimately leading their indigent defendants to be found guilty of crimes and sentenced to many penalties, including the ultimate penalty, the death penalty.

Some attorneys have slept through parts of trials,(62) appeared at trial drunk(63) and one who referred to his client by racial slurs.(64)

One writer noted that one woman, accused of murdering her husband, who she claimed abused her and her daughter, in Alabama may have been sentenced to death due to her court-appointed attorney's lack of quality representation this author stated:

It may have been in part because one of here court-appointed Lawyers was so drunk that the trial had to be delayed for a day after he was held in contempt and sent to jail. The next morning, he and his client were both produced from hail, the trial resumed, and the death penalty was imposed a few days later.(65) It may also have been in part because this lawyer failed to find hospital records documenting injuries received by the woman and her daughter, which would have corroborated their testimony about abuse. And
it may also have been because her lawyers did not bring their expert witness on domestic abuse to see the defendant until 8 p.m. on the night before he testified at trial.(66)
 Although one may think that this sentence of death could be easily overturned on appeal, both the Appeals Court and the Alabama State Supreme Court upheld the verdict and sentence.(67)

The author further points out other instances where court-appointed attorneys, due to a lack of experience or other controllable factor loose a case due to inadequate representations of their clients.(68) Further examples of inadequate court-appointed legal defense attorneys include: a sole-practitioner during her first capital trial ever led to the conviction and death sentence of the defendant even though the prosecutions case included only circumstantial evidence based on "questionable scientific evidence.(69)"

One other problem in representation of this particular defendant hinged on the funding of the defense.(70) The court-appointed attorney earned only $15 to $20 dollars per hour and the court rejected the attorney's request for co-counsel nor granted funds for co-counsel.(71); another account presents a case in which the court-appointed defense attorney, who received only $11.84 per hour, who failed to present an available alibi witness, relied upon an incorrect assumption about a key evidentiary point without doing the research that would have corrected his erroneous view of the law, and failed to interview and present witnesses who could have testified in rebuttal of the prosecutor's case.(72) This court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to death. Fortunately, a pro bono attorney later litigated the case and the court granted the defendant habeas corpus relief.(73) After spending nine years on death row, the courts released the defendant after the grand jury refused to re-indict him.(74); in other cases, the court-appointed attorneys failed to raise and preserve issues of jury diversity,(75) and the incompetence of a court-appointed attorney who lacked any meaningful experience or knowledge of criminal law such that when later asked to name the criminal law decisions with which he was familiar, from any court, the attorney replied that he only knew about "'Miranda and Dred Scott.(76)'" The author states that the judges and juries deciding these above mentioned cases sentenced the defendants to death because of "how bad the lawyers were."(77)

The lack of funding for court-appointed attorneys can create significant problems for those who rely their work if the attorney does not take care to ensure that the indigent are represented fairly.

How Do Judges Decide Which Attorneys To Appoint?

Typically we like to think judges appoint attorneys who they know are competent and will effectively represent their clients. But one author states "[i]t is no secret that elected state court judges do not appoint the best and brightest of the legal profession to defend capital cases."(78) If judges do not appoint attorneys who they know will do a good job representing the defendants who do they appoint? One author states that "'Philadelphia's poor defendants often find themselves being represented by ward leaders, ward committeemen, failed politicians, the sons of judges and party leaders, and contributors to the judge's election campaigns."(79) Additionally, to increase their chances at reelection, some judges appoint attorneys for capital cases who are not competent to properly represent the defendant so to ensure that the defendant is found guilty.(80)

Is This the Right Work For Me?

One common perception about court-appointed counsel is that people think that they are not qualified because if they were they would not be actively seeking out work from the court.(81) Along with the low pay and stressful work, the court-appointed attorney must grapple with others' perception of the work. Some attorneys may not want to work in an environment in which the attorneys who perform the work are perceived in this manner.

If you do consider becoming a court-appointed attorney it is an excellent idea, strongly advised, and crucial that you gain experience representing people before you seek out appointments. Some ways to gain such experience is to work for awhile in a practice, or to volunteer for and job shadow with an attorney for a significant amount of time.


The court-appointed attorney system is a system which needs dedicated professional attorneys who are willing to work hard for their clients. The court-appointed attorney system must be reformed so that the attorneys are paid adequate amounts to compensate them for the work they perform. The system needs to be changed so that other funding mechanisms are used to compensate attorneys. For instance, a scheme could be used to reward attorneys with more pay for more experience and better representation of their clients.

The legislatures must create a way so that indigent defendants are afforded more than adequate representation to promote justice in the legal system. Further, the attorneys who serve as court appointed attorneys must work hard to ensure that they are dedicated to providing the best representation possible for their clients, even if they are not being compensated adequately to ensure justice for their clients. All attorneys should work to ensure the court-appointed attorney system gains respect and affords quality representation.


1. The Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida Court Appointed Attorney Program <>.

2. See Henry Gabriel & Kimber L. Tuttle, Duties of the Court Appointed Attorney, 27 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 429 (1996) which states that the Texas Plan requires that a minimum of 25% of appointments of indigent cases go to the private bar.

3. Richard Klein, The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Compelled To Render Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 68 Ind. L.J. 363 (1993). These coordinators design the standards attorneys must follow in order for judges to appoint them as court-appointed attorneys.

4. Richard Klein, The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Compelled To Render The Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 68 Ind. L.J. 363 (1993).

5. Thomas F. Liotti, Does Gideon Still Make A Difference?, 2 N.Y. City L. Rev. 105, 107-8 (1998).

6. Id.

7. Henry Gabriel & Kimber L. Tuttle, Duties of the Court Appointed Attorney, 27 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 429 (1996).

8. Id.

9. See Liotti at 109.

10. Id.

11. Thomas F. Liotti, Does Gideon Still Make a Difference?, 2 N.Y. City L. Rev. 105 (1998).

12. Thomas F. Liotti, Does Gideon Still Make a Difference?, 2 N.Y. City L. Rev. 105 (1998).

13. Stephen B. Bright, Essay: Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L.J. 1835 at 1844.

14. Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida Court Appointed Attorney Program <>

15. Court Appointed Attorneys Pasco County <>.

16. id.

17. id.

18. id.

19. id.

20. id.

21. id.

22. Court Appointed Attorneys Criminal And Juvenile Delinquency Appeals <>

23. Court Appointed Conflict Attorneys - Capital Cases <>.

24. Court Appointed Attorneys Criminal And Juvenile Delinquency Appeals <>.

25. Id.

26. 27 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 429, 450.

27. ibid at 451.

28. ibid at 451.

29. ibid at 452.

30. ibid at 452, 453.

31. ibid at 452.

32. ibid at 452.

33. Stephen B. Bright, Essay: Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L.J. 1835 at 1853.

34. Id. at 1853, citing Marianne Lavelle, Strong Law Thwarts Lone Star Counsel, Nat'l L.J., June 11, 1990 at 34, and citing The Spangenberg Group, A Study of Representation In Capital Cases In Texas 156, at 157 (1993) (prepared for the State Bar of Texas).

35. Thomas F. Liotti, Does Gideon Still Make a Difference?, 2 N.Y. City L. Rev. 105, 106 (1998).

36. Iowa code§815.7 (1999)

37. Id.

38. Id.

39. Kent W. Lewis (plaintiff) v. Iowa District Court (defendant) Margaret E. Hasessler (plaintiff) v. Iowa District Court for Des Moines County (defendant), 555 N.W.2d 216 (Iowa 1996) at 217.

40. Id. at 217.

41. Id. at 218.

42. Id. at 218.

43. Id. at 218.

44. Id. at 218.

45. Id. at 219.

46. Id. at 219-21.

47. Id. at 220.

48. Id. at 220-1.

49. Carol Bryant, Court-appointed attorney fees soaring in Hall County, The (story last updated January 10, 1999), <>.

50. Stephen B. Bright, Essay: Counsel for the poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L.J. 1835 at 1850.

51. Id. citing one particular contract arrangement in Georgia.

52. Richard Klein, The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shall Not Be Compelled To Render Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 68 Ind. L.J. 363 (1993).

53. Id.

54. Id.

55. Id.

56. Id, citing Nancy Gist, Assigned Counsel: Is The Representation Effective?, CRIM. JUST., Summer 1989, at 16, 18.

57. Id, citing Special Comm. On Criminal Justice In A Free Society, Am. Bar Ass'n, Criminal Justice In Crisis 41-41 (1988) which the author quotes as saying that a "common complaint of court-appointed counsel is that the low level of compensation forces them 'to carry more cases than a lawyer could effectively handle, because if you don't do that, you go broke...'"

58. Id.

59. Id, citing Gist, supra note 40 at 19.

60. Id. citing Gist at 19

61. Id.

62. Stephen B. Bright, Essay: Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L.J. 1835, 1841, citing John Makeig, Asleep on the Job; Slaying Trial Boring, Lawyer Said, HOUS. CHRON., Aug. 14, 1992, at A35., and Harrison v. Zant, No. 88-V-1640, Order at 2 (Super. Ct. Butts County, Ga. Oct 5, 1990.), aff'd, 402 S.E. 2d 518 (Ga. 1991).

63. Id., citing Peoples v. Garrison, 254 Cal. Rptr. 257 (1986). Stating that counsel, an alcoholic was arrested en route to court one morning and found to have a blood alcohol level of .27.

64. Id., citing Goodwin v. Balkcom, 684 F.2d 794.

65. Stephen B. Bright, Essay: Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L.J. 1835, 1836 (1994), citing Record at 846-49, State v. Haney, No. 7 Div. 148 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).

66. Id., at 1835.

67. Id., at 1836, 1883, See Footnote 2, citing Haney v. State, 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) and Ex parte Haney, 603 So. 2d 412 (Ala. 1992).

68. Id., at 1837-43.

69. Id., at 1838.

70. Id., at 1838

71. Id., at 1838.

72. Id., at 1839.

73. Id., at 1839, citing Martinez-Macias v. Collins, 810 F. Supp. 782, 786-87, 796-813 (W.D. Tex. 1991), aff'd, 979 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir. 1992).

74. Id.

75. Id. at 1839, citing Birt v. Montgomery, 725 F.2d 587, 598 n.25 (11th Cir. 1984).

76. Id. at 1839, citing Transcript of Hearing of April 25-27, 1988 at 231, State v. Birt, (Super. Ct. Jefferson County, Ga. 1988)(No. 2360) The author notes that Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1957) was not a criminal case.

77. Id. at 1840.

78. Stephen B. Bright, Essay: Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Attorney, 103 Yale L.J. 1835, 1856 citing Thomas M. Ross, Rights at the Ballot Box: The Effect of Judicial Elections on Judges' Ability to Protect Criminal Defendants' Rights, 7 Law & Ineq. J. 107 (1988).

79. Id., citing Frederic N. Tulsky, Big Time Trials, Small Time Defenses, PHILA. INQUIRER, Sep. 14 1992 At A 8.

80. Id., citing the National Law Journal and the American Bar Association.

81. Richard Klein, The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Compelled To Rendered Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 68 Ind. L.J. 363.