Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative & Military Affairs- House

Thank you madam chair and may I bring to the table my expert witness you might. Please introduce yourself for the record. Good afternoon my name is Cheryl Anderson I am an attorney of in practicing law in Arkansas for gosh twenty nine years and I serve primarily as an attorney ad lot I'm in my private practice. Thank you you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair. What we do is legislators is trying to solve problems so the problem was brought to me by attorney Cheryl Anderson who lives in my area a problem with Adlai items and the way that they are paid the problem is two fold the administrative offices of the court are tasked to paper attorney and line items but they have limited funds. There is a pot of money and even when we have wealthy people coming before the court who are able to pay for their own attorneys the state is paying for the ad line item and we are asking in this bill for the judges to look at the ability to pay and make a determination and if the individuals are able to pay that they pay for their own attorney and line item the bill makes it very clear that the judge can determine who pays and who needs to be paid and this is merely saying that before we have the state pay legal bills if litigants are financially able that they should do that so with that I would like to ask for miss Anderson to speak more about the bill. I'd like to start in this cannot good. I'm a survivor thank. I'd like to start first by not assuming that everyone knows what an attorney ad litem is and does attorney at law items or attorneys who are appointed for that case for the litigation we don't represent people beyond the case for which we are appointed typically we are appointed to represent children or other people who are incapable of representing themselves whether that's through incompetency OR. Like a majority minority and so a judge will appoint us to come in in in domestic relations cases that's to represent the best interest of children in guardianship cases it could be that you're representing the best interest of someone who is incapacitated. There are three places currently in the statute we're attorney ad litem sorry dressed the first is in the dependency neglect statutes those the ones that we typically think of as the DHS cases a juvenile cases it It is complete and full of all the information anyone would ever need to know about how it turning it a lot Ms or to act behave get paid and what have you and those are contracted attorneys with the state of Arkansas. This bill does not address any of that. The other two areas are the domestic relations area which is custody visitation type cases and in that the third is the guardianship adoption type areas in this bill does address those two areas. What we're doing is giving or attempting to give judges the explicit authority to order Hallin attorney ad lot and that is appointed in a custody matter domestic relations matter or a guardianship. Adoption case how they get paid. And you would wonder why we need that except that there have been some very skillful attorneys who have tried to argue that because it was not specifically set forth in the statute that applies to those types of practice that all attorney ad litem have to be paid for the administrative office of the courts so what's the problem with that. The administrative office of the courts has limited funding there's at a part of many as represent if I mention that is set aside for different types of Adlai items when an attorney is representing a incapacitated person in there being paid to the AOC AOC limits the amount of hourly pay to ninety dollars an hour and the maximum that they can pay in any cases one thousand two hundred fifty dollars. Mind you some these cases go on for months and months and months and become quite convoluted there is a provision that allows women administrative office the courts funding has been gobbled up in a case for a judge to order people to pay the remainder or the difference it would always be at that ninety dollars an hour. What we see often times are as representative fight mentioned I can be in a case and directly I'm supposed to be represent the most important person there right now the kid who's getting caught up in all this. Parental drama who's going to be most affected but parent a has told our lawyer getting paid three hundred dollars an hour parent be has to alter our lawyer or other lawyer they're paying a lot of money. And no one wants to pay for the child's representation and so in in my estimation there should at least be a pause where the circuit judge can step back and say Hey wait these people can pay they should pay we shouldn't be tapping out of state money before we look to them to pay their obligation and so in practice we have some judges who do that I mean it's not clear the statute that they have that authority this is kind of what we're trying to address but. That has been challenged by attorneys and I've been on the receiving end of that challenge where is like well we're. The judge didn't have the authority to order you to get paid by my person until you exhausted your A. O. Siemens. Well that doesn't seem quite right and I don't think the state of Arkansas should be paying when other people can be paying for the situations that they're in an it also this bill will give judges the authority to set who pays maybe it's one party maybe it's both parties may there's more than two people who pays what percentage or what proportion the rate of pay of the attorney that judges going to know better you know what quality representation are these people getting House of that attorney be paid and it gives them the specific authority to do that and it also gives the judge the authority to order that retainers be paid if you've used an attorney understand the concept of a retainer you gonna have to put a little money on the table to get everyone all ready to go so that we're not behind the eight ball so to speak on payments that's pretty new practice in Arkansas really at least in the western area where I'm from but we finally have judges that are doing that and so the bill doesn't really seek to do anything that's like crazily different they may be what's been happening but it seeks to codify it. Anything more representive night before ready ready for questions okay are there any questions by the committee representative garner recognized for a question. Yes first of all I just wanna say thank you thank you. Okay. I just wanna say thank you for what you're doing my husband started his law practice as an attorney at law item and I started my volunteer services the guardian Adlai item in Texas so thank you very much for what you're doing and I really am just kind of playing devil's advocate here sure Is there an opportunity then for the money to make an issue in any of those or even the appearance of an issue if one one spouse can pay in one spouse cannot pay or you know how do we how do we just watch for that for the appearance of a conflict or an appearance of favoring a parent with money or without. I think you bring up a good question however it is already set up that in these particularly domestic relations cases or any cases where child support might be involved people are required to file an affidavit of financial means so we're not putting any new information in front of a judge that they would have already had in so and you know most often I see judges that are doing this are going to order that people paid equally but it would give in a in a case where there's an extreme discrepancy an ability to offset that difference. Any other questions by committee. Any questions for thank you. Representative may very you're recognized for a question okay thank you thanks for bringing the bill Ford I'm just curious if the Bar Association has waited on this or any other organizations involved if you can share who else is look at the bill just to give us a little comfort that other other groups have looked at it and think this is a good thing sure thank you for the question I will and candidly tell you I did not bring this forward without first speaking to the administrative office of the quirks Brooks dean worked with us in drafting the bill in changing even changing some language to make it a little more and in line with what their policies are in so and my understanding is that they did it through the judicial committee judicial council that they support the bill also. That's my understanding as well. Are there any other questions by committee. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak for or against the bill. Okay representative fight would you like to close for your bill yes my hope in bringing this bill is to correct the problem and to reserve the money for the people who need it and not have the money used for people who do not need it and we've had the situation occurring in several parts of the state where this money is dried up and we have to wait attorneys are having to wait months and months and months to be paid until the next funding comes through that's a necessary if people can pay for their attorneys they should do so and save that money so that it can be used for those who most need it with that I'm closed and I would to make a motion to pass we have a motion to pass is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. A ayes have it congratulations your bill has passed thank you madam chair thank you Committee. And with no further business before us we stand adjourned.