Opinion No., (1969)
Court: Oklahoma Attorney General Reports
Number:
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 10, 1969
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: OPINION — AG — **** DEFENDANT — INDIGENT — ATTORNEY'S FEES **** A COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT SHALL NOT BE PAID A SUM TO EXCEED $250.00 IN ANY ONE CASE. WHEN THE CASE IS CONCLUDED, BY FINAL TRIAL COURT JUDGEMENT OR OTHER DISPOSITION, THE ATTORNEY'S FEE SHOULD BE SET BY THE COURT. SHOULD THE COURT, FOR ANY REASON, FIND IT NECESSARY TO APPOINT MORE THAN ONE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT AN INDIGENT AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT IN ANY ONE CASE, THE TOTAL FEE ALLOWED CANNOT EXCEED $250.00, A
Summary: OPINION — AG — **** DEFENDANT — INDIGENT — ATTORNEY'S FEES **** A COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT SHALL NOT BE PAID A SUM TO EXCEED $250.00 IN ANY ONE CASE. WHEN THE CASE IS CONCLUDED, BY FINAL TRIAL COURT JUDGEMENT OR OTHER DISPOSITION, THE ATTORNEY'S FEE SHOULD BE SET BY THE COURT. SHOULD THE COURT, FOR ANY REASON, FIND IT NECESSARY TO APPOINT MORE THAN ONE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT AN INDIGENT AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT IN ANY ONE CASE, THE TOTAL FEE ALLOWED CANNOT EXCEED $250.00, AN..
More
OPINION — AG — **** DEFENDANT — INDIGENT — ATTORNEY'S FEES **** A COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT SHALL NOT BE PAID A SUM TO EXCEED $250.00 IN ANY ONE CASE. WHEN THE CASE IS CONCLUDED, BY FINAL TRIAL COURT JUDGEMENT OR OTHER DISPOSITION, THE ATTORNEY'S FEE SHOULD BE SET BY THE COURT. SHOULD THE COURT, FOR ANY REASON, FIND IT NECESSARY TO APPOINT MORE THAN ONE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT AN INDIGENT AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT IN ANY ONE CASE, THE TOTAL FEE ALLOWED CANNOT EXCEED $250.00, AND SUCH FEE SHOULD NOT BE PAID UNTIL FINAL TRIAL COURT JUDGEMENT OR OTHER FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE; HOWEVER, THE COURT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION PRORATE THE MAXIMUM FEE OF $250.00 BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE RENDERED BY EACH. CITE: 22 Ohio St. 1969 Supp., 1271 [22-1271], 22 Ohio St. 1961, 896-897 [22-896] — [22-897] W. J. MONROE ** SEE: OPINION NO. 89-079 (1990) ** SEE: OPINION NO. 69-359 (1969) **
Source: CourtListener
