Contract Defender

These Guidelines are intended to help local and state govern¬ments and agencies which choose to establish contract defense programs and which choose to award contracts on a competitive basis to do so constitutionally, and to help insure that efficient contract programs operate well for the government, the courts and the citizens they serve.Contracts written, negotiated and entered into in accordance with these Guidelines and with consideration of the issues these Guidelines raise should, by their terms, help ensure that high quality service will be provided to those defendants unable to afford counsel. Such contracts should also provide to the criminal justice system effective defense services which comport with government's other interests in efficiency, economy and accountability.

Author/Organization: National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA)
Publication Date: 1984

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.


Gideon Alert: Iowa S.Ct. finds rigid flat-fee contracts “substantially undermine” right to counsel

BY David Carroll on Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM

The Iowa Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Simmons v. State Public Defender, No. 07-0870 (Iowa Nov. 24, 2010), finding that a rigid fee cap of $1,500 per appellate case would “substantially undermine the right of indigents to effective assistance of counsel.”  The Court explained that “inadequate compensation will restrict the pool of attorneys willing to represent indigent defendants” and that “the low level of compensation threatens the quality of indigent representation because of the perverse economic incentives introduced into the criminal justice system. … Low compensation pits a lawyer’s economic interest … against the interest of the client.”  Reasoning that the fee caps at issue in the case would have a “profound chilling effect” on the right to counsel and that the legislature intended to uphold the right to counsel, the Court held that Iowa rules imposing a hard-fee cap are unenforceable.