Costs May Not Be Taxed To Public Defender Who Withdrew Due To Ethical Obligation

The Iowa Supreme Court has held that a public defender cannot be compelled to pay costs when the defender withdraws due to a disqualifying conflict of interest

The Iowa District Court for Story County assessed court and travel costs against the state public defender in a juvenile detention proceeding because it concluded the local defender improperly refused to represent the juvenile in the proceeding. The state public defender brought this certiorari action pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.107(1). We must determine whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally in taxing the costs against the state public defender. We conclude the district court erred and sustain the writ.

The story from Story

Around 9:00 a.m. on April 7, 2015, the district court issued an order appointing the local public defender of Nevada, Iowa, to represent S.J., a juvenile who had been detained the night before on a burglary charge in Story County. At 10:07 a.m., the public defender filed a motion to withdraw from representing S.J., citing concurrent conflicts of interest between S.J. and other clients.

 At 2:20 p.m. on the same day, the court held a hearing in Marshalltown on S.J.’s detention and the local public defender’s motion to withdraw. After counsel for the state made his opening statement, Katherine Flickinger, an attorney with the local public defender’s office, informed the court that S.J.’s interests were directly adverse to the interests of three of the local public defender’s other current clients. Flickinger argued she was ethically bound to withdraw from representing S.J. because of the concurrent conflicts of interest. See Iowa R. Prof’l  Conduct 32:1.7(a)(1)–(2) (providing that except in specific circumstances, an attorney “shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest”). Following a brief colloquy between the court and Flickinger about the public defender’s policies and procedures on handling withdrawals in such circumstances, the court took the motion to withdraw under advisement and continued questioning Flickinger…

The order granting withdrawal was entered later that day.

Holding

We conclude the district court made an error of law and exceeded its authority in determining the state public defender or the local public defender violated either statutory or ethical duties under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we sustain the writ and vacate the district court’s April 17 order taxing court costs and travel expenses to the state public defender. The state public defender complied with its statutory and ethical duties to avoid conflicts of interest. The district court therefore exceeded its lawful authority when it assessed court and travel costs against the state public defender for refusing to represent the child-in-interest at the detention hearing.

(Mike Frisch)