LOUISIANA INDIGENT DEFENDER BOARD

BOARD MEETING

LAW OFFICES OF J. MICHAEL SMALL

ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA

AUGUST 2, 1996

MINUTES

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Ben Barron; Samuel Dalton; Leah Guerry (by proxy); Rebecca Hudsmith; Wayne Lee (by proxy); Robert McLeod; Herman Robinson (by proxy); Walter M. Sanchez, Vice-Chair (by proxy); J. Michael Small; Sonja Spears, Secretary-Treasurer; and Henry Walker (by proxy).

STAFF PRESENT: Jean M. Faria.

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by the Secretary-Treasurer, Acting Chair of the Board.

2. Roll Call. The Acting Chair recognized the members of the Board present for the meeting and noted the proxy executed by Leah Guerry and given to Robert McLeod, the proxy executed by Wayne Lee and given in favor of Sonja Spears, the proxy of Herman Robinson and given to Robert McLeod, the proxy executed by Walter Sanchez and given to J. Michael Small, the proxy executed by Henry Walker and given to J. Michael Small. On the basis of these introductions, it was noted that a quorum was present.

3. Welcoming Remarks of the Chair. The Acting Chair welcomed the members of the Board and the staff and briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting, explaining its purpose and scope. The Acting Chair then entertained a motion by Mr. Dalton to approve the minutes of the Board's July 19, 1996 meeting. Dr. Barron seconded the motion, which passed without opposition.

4. Review of Contracts. The Acting Chair recognized Mr. Dalton who requested that the Board reconsider its position on the payment of funds to attorneys. Mr. Dalton expressed his concern that the Board should issue payment in the name of the attorneys who are appointed to represent indigent defendants charged with first degree murder. Ms. Hudsmith asked why the Board should be concerned with how the check was issued, whether it was in the name of a law firm or in the individual attorney's name.

Mr. Small noted that each bill is signed by the appointed attorney and provides a detailed billing of the date and type of services rendered, which as prudent administrators of the public fisc, is the only concern of the Board.

The staff explained that lawyers in firms had indicated their unwillingness to accept payment which was not issued to their respective firms in light of the tax consequences. Further, should the Board make such a decision it would occasion an increased burden on the Judicial Administrator's financial staff, both in the number of checks to be issued and the 1099s which would have to be issued at the end of the tax year.

Mr. McLeod stated that there would be no tax liability for the attorneys, who would in turn be required to issue their respective firms a 1099. Mr. Small stated that he would want any check made payable to his law offices, not his associates. If it were impossible to do so firms may take the position that associates may not accept the appointments.

Mr. McLeod asked whether the Board would accept an attorney's written request to assign the fee to his or her law firm. Ms. Hudsmith stated that the rule should be the same for all non-indigent defender board attorneys. After further discussion Mr. McLeod moved that checks be issued in the name of any non-indigent defender board attorney, who is appointed by the court based on approved submitted bills in all cases. Mr. Dalton seconded the motion which passed without opposition.

5. Brainstorm. Dr. Barron turned the Board's attention to the organization of the materials to be presented to the Special Committee created by the Legislature. Relying on the interbranch 1994 Report of the Task Force on Indigent Defense, he proposed that we make detailed findings of fact showing that Supreme Court Rule XXXI was the direct result of the Task Force's recommendations.

Dr. Barron stated that the Board should look at why it was created. The Task Force report recommended that the Supreme Court create a Board. The function of the Board is "to provide indigent defendants with proper legal counsel as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions." The Board should clearly state its mission. From that statement, the objectives and operational needs would be clear.

Ms. Spears indicated that the transition document should provide the Special Committee with direction for the future. Such direction should be based on the findings of the Board after gathering information from indigent defenders, judges, the private bar, prosecutors, and on site visits.

Mr. McLeod felt that the report should reflect those problems which have not been resolved and which need to be addressed. The report should also reflect the findings of other entities who have made similar studies and state what the Board feels should be done about these problems, including explanations of why the Board has or has not come to the same conclusions as those reached in the other studies.

Supreme Court Rule XXXI requires the Board to address uniform quality of counsel. Ms. Hudsmith stated that the report should determine the best way to provide uniform quality of counsel in a manner and at a cost that best serves the criminal justice system.

The report should include the provisions in Rule XXXI, the Standards and Guidelines promulgated by the Board which deal with workload, performance of counsel, conflicts of interest. Fiscal accountability and effective assistance of counsel should be the touch stones for the report.

The Board should continue its oversight role in coordinating and monitoring the use of state funds by the district indigent defender boards. Mr. Dalton and Mr. McLeod felt that time sheets would improve the accountability of the use of public funds. They noted that some prosecutors had raised the issue of how much time is actually being spent on indigent defender cases. The staff explained that the indigent defenders resisted the use of time sheets, although several offices in the past had required them.

Early notification and case management and tracking were discussed. The Board directed the staff to pursue the early notification standards previously drafted and that the case tracking advisory committee complete its study and make its recommendations to be included in the report. The Board also asked that the Rules Advisory Committee complete its recoupment statute for presentation to the Board.

Funding was discussed in detail. The staff provided financial data regarding the amount of locally generated revenues. Mr. Dalton felt that the Board should take the position that it be funded by general appropriation, maintaining the system of locally generated traffic ticket and bond forfeiture revenues, subject to any recommendations subsequently made by the Task Force on Court Funding, currently studying court costs.

6. Other Business. The staff reported that Trial Scout has been favorably reviewed by Orleans Indigent Defender Office and Conflicts Panel, the Jefferson Parish Indigent Defender Office and the Caddo Parish Indigent Defender Office. The original proposal for this technical assistance was for seven offices throughout the state to have access to these systems. On motion of Mr. Dalton, seconded by Ms. Spears, to install Trial Scout in East Baton Rouge, Calcasieu and Ouachita Parishes was passed without opposition.

The staff explained that both the Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy Chief Executive Officer have been contacted by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association to attend the Annual Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. On motion of Mr. McLeod, seconded by Mr. Dalton, approval of out of state travel, accommodations and conference fees passed without opposition.

Mr. Small informed the Board that he is resigning from the Board of Directors of the Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center effective immediately.

7. Adjournment. After completion of business, a motion was made, seconded and adopted to adjourn.