subject: The Indigent's Right To An Attorney's Representation [print this page] There is an attorney who questioned the way the state system is not compensating lawyers who are forced to represent clients from rural areas and fought for its replacement. The lawyer brought to the attention of the court that requiring attorneys to pay for the poor citizens' legal services was unfair treatment. He gained sympathy from the justices of the court, based from what they asked and how they reacted.
The problem of compensation is seen mainly in areas where there is an insufficiency of lawyers and there are zero public defenders' offices. Judges find themselves having to create defense systems for the indigent and also to assign cases to lawyers. He said it's the responsibility of the state, not the legal profession, to ensure indigent criminals receive a fair trail and defense.
Can lawyers have rights found in the constitution as well? Of all the groups of people that exist in the United States, only lawyers are being required to give up much of their time and wealth for the poor in return for insufficient compensation. If the state is going to require lawyers to use up their resources for the poor, then they should require other professionals as well.
The moral and ethical duty of any attorney is to be there to represent the client, no matter how much compensation will be given. He states that the state is not in any way bound to give attorneys any form of compensation for public defender work. The legal profession of Kansas is morally and ethically obligated to make representation available to the public.
I'll agree lawyers probably are losing money representing indigent clients. Although I sympathize with attorneys who are not compensated well, the fact remains that attorneys are obliged to take indigent cases. Attorneys have no constitutional right to earn a profit representing indigent clients.
For one attorney, he sees nothing wrong with helping the poor despite it being an obligation, provided that he does not encounter financial problems because of it. A justice pointed out that when the state encountered financial problems, the rate paid to private attorneys who represented indigents was cut down whereas the budgets of the public defenders' offices remained the same.
In the old federal system, attorneys represented their clients without any compensation, and this is the same case with the state's current situation, the justice pointed out. A system for federal public defenders is already active.
Since attorneys find themselves in financial difficulties having to spend money to defend indigent clients, the accused are also denied their constitutional rights to sufficient legal counsel. You find yourself tossing between your client's constitutional rights or the state of your finances. It denies the defendants their constitutional right to a fair trial.
There was a time when client representation was an honor. Then, it wasn't just free legal counsel simply for felonies but for other things as well. The system is bound to fail. From time to time, I would like to do certain work for free. The situation has gone way off.
