The Tennessee Supreme Court announced last week it is going to try to ratchet down the costs of providing attorneys for poor people, recommend a boost in pay for those lawyers, and lend its voice to a push for money to reform a broken system.

The high court in a news release detailed changes it wants to see in ensuring poor people are afforded legal representation that pass constitutional muster. Nearly all require buy-in from Tennessee lawmakers, who hold the purse strings.

The most notable recommendation was a boost from $40-$50 hourly pay for appointed lawyers to a flat $65 hourly rate, and a $500 boost in the $1,500 maximum those lawyers can earn on a case.

More:Public defenders to state Supreme Court: Show us the money

Tennessee ranks among the lowest in the nation in the rate of pay for attorneys for the poor, and legal groups including the Tennessee Bar Association have long pushed for an increase.

Change slow, funding an issue

It has taken two decades for the high court to recommend the pay rate hike for attorneys appointed to handle the cases of poor people faced with losing their liberty, their children and, in rare cases, their lives. It will be up to legislators to fund it.

The high court’s list of recommendations comes after the release of a report 18 months in the making by the Indigent Representation Task Force, a panel shepherded into action by former Chief Justice Sharon Lee.

“The task force confirmed what many of us already suspected: The system needs major reforms,” said current Chief Justice Jeff Bivins. “While no perfect solution exists, the Court believes the improvements we commit to today will move the state toward a more efficient, effective means of providing this representation that our federal and state constitutions guarantee.”

The high court noted in the release its proposals hinge on funding.

“Some of these changes require legislation that the Court will be supporting in the 2018 legislative session,” the release stated. “In addition, the Court intends to make changes to several state court rules that govern how attorneys are compensated, provided the governor and state legislators approve the requested funding.”

Tamping down on costs

The court said it will do what it can to be “good stewards” of money. The court said it will be requiring judges to scrutinize cases and justify when they order cases assigned to private attorneys instead of the local public defender’s office.

Tennessee uses a public defender system for providing attorneys for poor people accused of crimes. Public defenders are elected officials whose budgets also depend on the state Legislature for funding.

But public defenders cannot represent all poor people accused of crimes. Most offices don’t have the staff, and there are instances – known as legal conflicts – in which the public defender’s office cannot legally take on particular cases.

Private attorneys pick up the slack, and the state high court’s administrative arm manages the money for those expenses.

By now requiring judges to more carefully consider when to turn to private attorneys to represent the poor, the high court is hoping to reduce that bill even as it recommends more money toward it, the release stated.

Appellate divisions for the poor pushed

The court said it will also give its public backing to a task force proposal for legislative funding of appellate divisions within the public defender’s offices, another move to cut down on the number of private attorneys paid to represent the poor.

Prosecutors already have an appellate office to turn to – the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, which handles all criminal appeals for the state. Public defenders must handle their own appeals as well as their regular court caseloads.

The task force determined it would be cheaper to staff an appellate division within the public defender’s office than to pay private attorneys for the work. It would also ensure the poor receive constitutionally-sound appellate representation, the panel concluded.

The state Supreme Court also intends to try to speed up payments to attorneys representing the poor, particularly in juvenile court proceedings.

“One complaint the task force heard during its work was that the requirement to bill at a case’s conclusion sometimes means waiting years to receive payment for work performed,” the release stated.

“The Court, through its Administrative Office of the Courts, will implement periodic billing to address this problem, first in juvenile dependent and neglect cases, which tend to last the longest,” it continued.

Tennessee Bar president: Proposals a 'start'

Tennessee Bar Association president Lucian Pera lauded the high court’s recommendations as a good “start.”

“The TBA applauds the Supreme Court’s strong leadership on indigent representation reform,” he said in a statement. “We look forward to partnering with the court and others interested in making real improvement on the status quo.

“For too long Tennessee has been at the very bottom of the heap nationally in the way we fund representation of indigent defendants, as well as juveniles caught in the system,” Pera said. “The court's recommendations regarding rates and caps is a step in the right direction. Frankly, it is a small step, and it is not enough; but it is a start.”