sunEthics

Trial court erred in ordering JAC to pay lawyer's fee where JAC objected and trial court did not hold hearing on objection.  [Added 2/15/10]

    The trial court appointed Lawyer to represent Mother in a dependency proceeding.  The Justice Administrative Commission ("JAC") paid Lawyer's bill of $1000.  The Department of Children and Families filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights.  Mother was served but failed to appear at the termination hearing.  At the hearing the court appointed Lawyer to represent Mother.  The court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights.

    Lawyer billed JAC for her representation of Mother.  JAC objected, "asserting that it did not have statutory authority to pay because the parent must be present in the court at the time counsel is appointed."  At JAC's suggestion, Lawyer filed a petition for compensation in circuit court.  The petition noted JAC's objection and requested a hearing.  The circuit court did not hold a hearing but instead entered an order directing JAC to pay Lawyer's bill.  JAC petitioned the Fifth DCA for a writ of certiorai.

    The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the circuit court's order.  The order awarding Lawyer's fee "should not have been entered without giving JAC the opportunity to be heard on its objection."

    The court further stated:  "We also direct the circuit court’s attention to the recent opinions of Justice Administrative Commission v. Harp, 2009 WL 5150300 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 31, 2009) (holding that circuit court lacked statutory authority to appoint counsel for mother who voluntarily executed a written surrender of parental rights; JAC not required to pay counsel for mother’s legal representation at the termination of parental rights proceeding under these facts), and Justice Administrative Commission v. Berry, 5 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding circuit court departed from essential requirements of law in requiring JAC to pay attorney’s fees for counsel appointed to represent fathers in termination proceedings where fathers did not appear at the proceedings, thereby consenting to the termination of their parental rights, and their indigency could not be determined)."  Justice Administrative Comm'n v. Gayden, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 5th DCA, No. 5D09-3053, 2/12/2010).

sunEthics is produced by Tim Chinaris, and hosted by Faulkner University's Jones School of Law.  Please read our disclaimers.  Search our site, or view previously posted summaries using our SUBJECT INDEX.  © 2010