Much has changed in the New York legal community since 2003, but at least one aspect has remained constant: pay rates for assigned counsel, known as 18-B attorneys, has stubbornly remained fixed at $75 an hour.

And while the pay rate for 18-B hasn't budged, living expenses have gone up and caseloads have mounted, said Sarah Tirgary, a Queens-based family law attorney who serves as president of the Assigned Counsel Association of the Queens Family Court, and 18-B attorneys.

Assigned counsel work as a “safety net” for the courts by taking conflict cases or representing defendants who have dumped their appointed attorney. But Tirgary said that, as assigned counsel continues to get squeezed financially, there are fewer attorneys who are willing to take on the work.

“We run around the courthouse basically like chickens without heads,” Tirgary said.

That pay rates for assigned counsel have remained stagnant is not lost on New York's legal community: last year, a committee within the New York State Bar Association issued a report calling for the state legislature to get more pay for 18-B attorneys.

But Tirgary isn't just relying on a recommendation from the State Bar: she's formed a group to advocate for the advocates, the Assigned Counsel Association of New York State, which she said counts more than 300 18-B attorneys within its ranks, and is meeting with lawmakers in Albany to push for real change.

And while securing bigger paychecks for assigned counsel is one of its primary goals, Tirgary said the group wants to see changes that could be good for the attorneys as well as their clients, like raising money to buy Metrocards for clients and reaching out to community groups that may be able to provide other types of assistance to clients.

Tirgary spoke with the Law Journal about the continued challenges for New York's 18-B attorneys and her hopes for legislative action. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What factors do you think have prevented 18-B attorneys from getting bigger paychecks?

A: The reasons for the length of time is that increases require legislative action. Raising the rate statutorily has budgetary implications statewide. The court decision in 2003 said we should get $90, we ended up with $75. That was the compromise. The need for a raise also coincides to there be a growing sense of crisis. There was a crisis in 2001-2004. There is a growing crisis now, that has percolated over the last few years as the number of cases has exploded such that the attorneys doing this work cannot do so—the number of cases has increased, which has the net effect of attorneys leaving the panels and retiring.

At the same time, recruitment is negatively impacted because of the stagnant hourly rate coupled with student loans and health insurance costs. We are also faced with attorneys taking temporary leaves of absence to catch up on the high amount of case loads they are trying to maintain.

The primary reason, though, is that government, while recognizing the need for the indigent to have representation, rarely wants to spend the money to adequately pay for it. The indigent do not have a natural power base that governments care about, as they are not likely to vote. I'm not saying that they do not care, but caring and funding are not equal. Thus, the issue resonates years later when there is a crisis, plus there is increased awareness that progressive government means helping the poor by providing help in places like Housing Court.

It will take a progressive legislature like the one we see in Albany to see the causal connection between adequate legal representation of people in crisis and an overall savings in money in the long run as families avoid further legal involvement. This can be achieved by connecting families with the proper social services.

Q: How does stagnant pay for assigned counsel affect clients and the justice system as a whole?

A: Stagnant pay results in a slowdown of hiring and a slowdown in recruiting experienced and qualified attorneys. We have high standards. Our attorneys need to hit the ground running without having their hands held from day one on. They can't come in out of law school and become panel attorneys.

As the safety net of the court, panel members are there to take every conflict case and take over cases when litigants “fire” their retained or institutional lawyers. We also represent the indigent in Supreme Court, domestic violence parts, youth parts and the like. These are often the most difficult cases. With the increasing volume of cases, caseloads have risen, as have the loads for the jurists. If a lawyer has too many matters, and the courts have limited time, then cases do not get done. In addition, certain cases are frequently “emergencies,” that bump cases and the cycle continues. The crisis for the court deepens as they cannot get the cases done without enough lawyers with flexible schedules to handle the cases.

A rate increase would allow for greater earnings capacity and a cost of living adjustment would make it more likely attorneys would not worry about loans, administrative and insurance costs and future stagnant wages.

Q: Are you optimistic that you can successfully advocate for pay increases?

A: I'm feeling optimistic that we will get a pay increase as there is an increasing recognition that there is a crisis in Family Court in particular. I can only speak for Family Court and, from what I see, the crisis is escalating daily. The fact that it's been over 15 years since our last raise is a good reason. We have a legislature that understands the causal connection between lawyers and families. Whether it has to do with defending victims of domestic violence, helping parents and children get connected to services, this legislature knows that we are the people to do that and keep families from falling apart.

Legislators need to realize that families can be kept together, strengthened and protected and that parent and child representation should be valued. Society becomes better overall when families are intact and not in crisis. Stating the obvious is sometimes necessary for us to see the trees that make up the forest.