In re B.B.

Supreme Court of Vermont

In re B.B.

682 A.2d 954, 165 Vt. 579, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 63

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 27, 1996

DocketNo. 96-301

StatusPublished

This text of 682 A.2d 954 (In re B.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re B.B., 682 A.2d 954, 165 Vt. 579, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 63 (Vt. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Mother appeals from an order of the family court, which requires her to reimburse the State in the amount of $339 for assigned counsel to represent her child who is an adverse party in this juvenile proceeding. She argues that reimbursement by her, the adverse party, creates a conflict of interest for the attorney representing the child. We disagree. Because counsel is assigned by the court and reimbursement is made to the State, we conclude that there is no potential for a conflict of interest arising from the reimbursement requirement.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mother appeals from an order of the family court, which requires her to reimburse the State in the amount of $339 for assigned counsel to represent her child who is an adverse party in this juvenile proceeding. She argues that reimbursement by her, the adverse party, creates a conflict of interest for the attorney representing the child. We disagree. Because counsel is assigned by the court and reimbursement is made to the State, we conclude that there is no potential for a conflict of interest arising from the reimbursement requirement.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

682 A.2d 954, 165 Vt. 579, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bb-vt-1996.