3 No. 82
In the Matter of New York State Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Judith S. Kaye, as Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals,
et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 74
June 14, 2001
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Jay Cohen, for appellants.
Alicia R. Ouellette, for respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
PER CURIAM:
On this appeal, we determine the extent of authority that Judiciary
Law § 35-b confers on the Court of Appeals in connection with the rate
of compensation for assigned counsel in capital cases.
Judiciary Law § 35-b(1) provides for four member screening panels,
one for each Judicial Department, charged with proposing and
periodically updating fee schedules for assigned capital counsel, in
consultation with the Administrative Board of the Courts.(2) The
fee schedules are subject to approval by the Court of Appeals.
In November 1996, the Court of Appeals, acting in its administrative
capacity, approved the Capital Counsel Fee Schedules submitted by each
Department's panel. All four schedules set hourly fees for lead
counsel at $175 and for associate counsel at $150. The schedules also
set hourly rates for "reasonably necessary" additional legal and
paralegal assistance.
In accordance with the legislative mandate that it periodically update
the fee schedules, the Court of Appeals, in September 1997, directed
the panels to reexamine capital counsel fees in light of experience
and empirical data. The Administrative Board of the Courts recommended
a bifurcated compensation scheme, reducing the lead counsel hourly
SNIPPETS:
In the Matter of New York State Association of Criminal Defense
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Alicia R. Ouellette, for respondents.
we determine the extent of authority that Judiciary Law § 35-b confers on the Court of
Judiciary Law § 35-bprovides for four member screening panels, one for each Judicial
The Administrative Board of the Courts recommended a bifurcated compensation scheme, reducing
The screening panels for the Second, Third and Fourth Departments adopted the recommendations.
In April 1999, petitioners, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, on
ion.
Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the merits, finding that petitioners failed to
Without reaching the merits, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that petitioners lacked
While the Appellate Division decided only the issue of standing and the parties have argued
The issue before us distills to whether the Legislature has delegated the ultimate
The term "promulgate" has a variety of meanings that include:
Notably, the Legislature directed that "prior to approving fee schedules, the court shall
The most important of these administrative functions is the Court's assigned role with
In discharging its administrative function, the Court's authority is not restricted to narrow
The criminal courts within the First Department would have been stymied, unable to comply
Among the documents reviewed by the Court was an April 1998 report prepared for the American
Chief Judge Kaye and Judge Graffeo took no part.
Each screening panel shall establish and periodically update a roster of attorneys qualified
|
