Indigent Criminal Defendants Suffer the Most From Current System's Issues
I am doing court-appointed work in Philadelphia, but I am not getting paid because I am told now we have to get a second appointment letter. What is going on?
August 10, 2017 at 05:06 PM
11 minute read
Indigent criminal defendants suffer the most from current system's issues.
I am doing court-appointed work in Philadelphia, but I am not getting paid because I am told now we have to get a second appointment letter. What is going on?
Unfortunately, the Philadelphia court-appointed system, which is known for its terribly low compensation rates and extremely long delays in payment, has developed another roadblock. At the end of the case, a lawyer submits a pre-printed fee petition for the type of case and the amount. Attached is the appointment letter. The fee petition is signed by the judge and then submitted to the Counsel Fee Unit, which submits it to the city of Philadelphia.
The problem now is that if the lawyer was appointed at the very beginning of the case for the preliminary hearing, there is only a municipal court number on the appointment letter. Now, the city of Philadelphia is refusing to pay if a lawyer does a preliminary hearing and then continues on the case through trial, because the city says the appointment letter only has a municipal court docket number. Of course, that is true because that's when the appointment letter was issued.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Avoiding Conflict When Relating Advice to an Adverse Party to Facilitate a Client Matter
4 minute read
De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Matt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Appears to Lean Toward Letting TikTok Ban Take Effect
- 2Standing Spat: Split 2nd Circuit Lets Challenge to Pfizer Diversity Program Proceed
- 3Judge Jablonski and Chief Justice Rabner Both Acted Completely Properly
- 4About Face: Court Takes Up Boeing Suit It Had Rejected
- 5Prosecutors Seek 15 Years in Prison for Ex-US Sen. Robert Menendez
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
