Commissioners make first appearance in court
Visiting judge requests further argument on writ demanding attorneys' fees
EPHRATA The Grant County commissioners and auditor made their first appearance in court Thursday in accordance with a lawsuit filed by local
attorneys, and the verdict was clear:
Douglas County Superior Court Judge John Hotchkiss needs more time to
hear more argument.
The visiting judge told opposing attorneys Jerry Moberg, who represented the commissioners, and Carl Warring to submit briefs arguing whether the commissioners should have filed to delay the suit until a state appellate court makes a ruling on the attorneys' fees.
At stake is between $200,000 and $300,000 the total amount of fees the
11 attorneys from Grant and Chelan counties are demanding they be paid
for their indigent-defense service, according to Moberg.
If the attorneys win the case, the money would most likely come from
county coffers.
Commissioners Tim Snead, LeRoy Allison and Deborah Moore and Auditor Bill Varney appeared in Grant County Superior Court in response to a writ of
mandamus filed by the 11 attorneys.
Warring was joined in court by Chelan County attorneys Earl Hensley and
Julie Anderson, both of whom were asked to take indigent-defense cases by
Grant County Superior Court Judge Evan Sperline following the disbarment
of public defender Tom Earl earlier this year.
Warring, as lead attorney, handled all the arguments.
The 11 attorneys, some of whom volunteered and some who were conscripted, filed the action to compel the commissioners to pay their fees for service as determined by Grant County judges.
The lawsuit named all four of the public officials as individuals, though
Moberg said the county will defend them because they were acting in
official capacity.
A writ of mandamus is a rarely used legal order that seeks to require
public officials to perform their duty.
By filing the writ, the lawyers are arguing the commissioners have failed
in their duty to pay them at the fee rate approved by the judges, which
ranged from $132 per hour to as high as $180 per hour.
Varney is included in the suit because his office audits expenditures
approved by commissioners.
The writ, which was filed in August, demands the commissioners either pay the attorneys' fees or show cause as to why they have not. If they fail
to do either, possible penalties include jail time or fines, according to
the writ.
The commissioners approved an $80,000 system paying the attorneys $550 per case, and they have maintained the judges did not have the authority to approve the payments at that rate.
The commissioners made this appropriation after the judges approved their fee rate, which set the stage for the conflict. The commissioners have
argued the judicial branch does not have authority to demand the
executive branch of county government to appropriate funds.
Numerous attorneys have already agreed to the $550 per case payment
offered by commissioners.
The arguments in court Thursday centered around whether the writ of
mandamus should be filed in the first place. Moberg filed a motion requesting Hotchkiss quash the writ, saying an appellate court may overturn the Grant County judges' ruling because they failed to recuse
themselves.
Moberg, citing an 1899 Spokane County case, said a writ of mandamus can only be filed if the attorneys have no other recourse to collect their
fees.
"I don't see how a lawyer can reasonably calculate that a mandamus would apply," Moberg said.
Additionally, Moberg said the county should automatically receive a stay, or delay, in the legal proceedings because of the pending appeal, which will be decided next year.
Because the writ should not have been filed, Moberg argued, the county is requesting reimbursement for his legal fees from the attorneys. After the
hearing, he told the Herald those fees total $3,500 for his case.
Warring argued that Moberg failed to follow procedure and file a motion
requesting a stay in the case.
Citing a 1905 Washington case, Warring said the writ is appropriate when public officials refuse to obey a ruling by a court.
"All we're trying to do is to collect a judge's award to us," Warring
said, adding, "I don't see how they (the commissioners) don't have a
clear, mandated duty in this case."