Last year, the First Judicial District raised rates for indigent defense attorneys for the first time in nearly 20 years. Now, more than 10 months later, there is still no agreement to cover the increased costs, and the latest effort to fill the funding gap is facing a mounting pushback.

That pushback is powered by advocates for Jenkins Law Library who see the measure as jeopardizing the viability of the venerable Philadelphia legal institution.

Jenkins' efforts have gained support from high-profile members of Philadelphia's legal community, including eight past Philadelphia Bar Association chancellors—including Abraham Reich of Fox Rothschild and Al Dandridge of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis—well-known civil litigator Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter and prominent criminal defense attorney Michael Coard.

Late last year, state Rep. John Taylor, R-Philadelphia, introduced a bill proposing to take 67 percent of the filing fee revenue normally given to the Jenkins Law Library and re-direct that money into the FJD's general fund operating budget. Since the city, and not the court, is responsible for paying indigent defense counsel, the legislation is meant to be part of an agreement where the city would reduce the amount it would otherwise give to the FJD, so it can instead use that money to pay the court-appointed attorneys.

The former chancellors, Kline and Coard were joined by dozens of others in signing a letter written by Jenkins Law Library president Theodore “Ted” Simon opposing the bill, which is House Bill 1937. In the letter, Simon said small firms and self-represented litigants depend on the law library for access to resources like LexisNexis and Westlaw, and that cutting the funding “threatens the library's existence.”

The letter also included dozens of testimonials as to the library's utility to Philadelphia lawyers and pro se litigants.

In the meantime, there has also been some pushback from within the Philadelphia Bar Association, with the bar's solo and small firm management committee voting against a resolution seeking support for the bill, and the delivery of legal services committee deciding not to vote on the resolution. Instead, the DLS committee, which is part of the bar's Public Interest Section and includes directors of more than 30 nonprofit legal aid nonprofits, issued a position statement, saying that the proposed legislation diverts “core government responsibility and places this burden on the limited resources of a nonprofit organization, Jenkins Law Library.”

“This proposed funding scheme also creates an untenable tension between the needs of Philadelphia's nonprofit community and the needs of court-appointed counsel,” the committee's statement said.

The next board of governors meeting of the bar association is scheduled for April 26, and no decision has yet been made about whether the resolution supporting the bill will be introduced.

“Our members have expressed different opinions on this issue,” bar chancellor Mary Platt said Wednesday. “If the resolution is brought to the board, the board will hear all sides and consider the different points of view.”

In an emailed statement on Wednesday, Simon said the support was “overwhelming” and “heartwarming.”

“We level the playing field for all, whether rich or poor, self-represented litigants, solo practitioners or large firms,” he said in the statement. “We are optimistic that your Jenkins Law Library having served our community for more than 200 years will continue to proudly serve all constituents and provide equal access to justice for all.”

When the FJD approved the new fee schedule raising rates for court-appointed attorneys, the increases were estimated to add between $4.5 million and $5 million to the nearly $9 million that the city appropriates annually for counsel fees.

HB 1937 is the latest effort seeking to provide adequate funding for court-appointed counsel, but it is not the first.

In May, Taylor issued a memorandum seeking co-sponsorship of a proposed bill that would seek to impose a 10 percent fee on civil filings and allocate 33 to 50 percent of the law library fees toward supporting court-appointed attorneys. That proposal was never introduced, and sources at the time told The Legal that proposal faced pushback from the state Supreme Court.

The latest efforts come after court-appointed attorneys have struggled for years with low pay, long payment delays and, in some instances, having their fee requests slashed after providing the services.

Several attorneys who handle court-appointed cases have recently told The Legal that, despite the increases, they are still facing payment delays and frustrations continue.

Susan Lin of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, who is co-chair of the bar's criminal justice section, which has sought support for HB 1937, noted that providing adequate payment for indigent defense counsel is a constitutional obligation.

Lin, who noted she was not talking on behalf of the bar association but rather as someone who has spoken with several attorneys who do court-appointed work, said she recognized the interests of the law library and the benefits the group provides, but that the legislation is part of the difficult decision-making that has to take place to ensure that indigent defendants receive adequate counsel.

“We have to figure out what our priorities are,” she said. ”We have an obligation, for society as a whole, to provide for the defense of indigent defendants.”

Taylor did not return a call seeking comment.