James v. Dolan v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James v. Dolan v. United States

351 F.2d 671, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4336

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1965

Docket22454

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 351 F.2d 671 (James v. Dolan v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James v. Dolan v. United States, 351 F.2d 671, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4336 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

There was no error in the district court’s dismissal of this claim by an attorney for compensation for his professional services rendered in the representation of an indigent defendant by court appointment prior to the enactment into law of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964.

We are in full accord with the rationale of the Ninth Circuit in its opinion in United States v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633, decided June 16, 1965, wherein it was said:

“ * * * the obligation of the legal profession to serve indigents on court order is an ancient and established tradition, and * * * appointed counsel have generally been compensated, if at all, only by statutory fees which would be inadequate under just compensation principles, and which are usually payable only in limited types of cases. Further, * * * the vast majority of the courts which have passed on the question have denied claims of appointed counsel for nonstatutory just compensation, pointing out that representation of indigents under court order, without a fee, is a condition under which lawyers are licensed to practice as officers of the court, and that the obligation of the legal profession to serve without compensation has been modified only by statute. An applicant for admission to practice law may justly be deemed to be aware of the traditions of the profession which he is joining, and to know that one of these traditions is that a lawyer is an officer of the court obligated to represent indigents for little or no compensation upon court order. Thus, the lawyer has consented to, and assumed, this obligation and when he is called upon to fulfill it, he cannot contend that it is a ‘taking of his services.’ Cf. Kunhardt & Company, Inc. v. United States, 266 U.S. 537, 45 S.Ct. 158, 69 L.Ed. 428 (1925).”

The order of the district court denying petition for compensation is, therefore,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

There was no error in the district court’s dismissal of this claim by an attorney for compensation for his professional services rendered in the representation of an indigent defendant by court appointment prior to the enactment into law of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964.

We are in full accord with the rationale of the Ninth Circuit in its opinion in United States v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633, decided June 16, 1965, wherein it was said:

“ * * * the obligation of the legal profession to serve indigents on court order is an ancient and established tradition, and * * * appointed counsel have generally been compensated, if at all, only by statutory fees which would be inadequate under just compensation principles, and which are usually payable only in limited types of cases. Further, * * * the vast majority of the courts which have passed on the question have denied claims of appointed counsel for nonstatutory just compensation, pointing out that representation of indigents under court order, without a fee, is a condition under which lawyers are licensed to practice as officers of the court, and that the obligation of the legal profession to serve without compensation has been modified only by statute. An applicant for admission to practice law may justly be deemed to be aware of the traditions of the profession which he is joining, and to know that one of these traditions is that a lawyer is an officer of the court obligated to represent indigents for little or no compensation upon court order. Thus, the lawyer has consented to, and assumed, this obligation and when he is called upon to fulfill it, he cannot contend that it is a ‘taking of his services.’ Cf. Kunhardt & Company, Inc. v. United States, 266 U.S. 537, 45 S.Ct. 158, 69 L.Ed. 428 (1925).”

The order of the district court denying petition for compensation is, therefore,

Affirmed.

25 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1541, 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,886 in the Matter of Five Applications for Appointment of Counsel Title Vii Proceedings. Roosevelt Stephen White v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., Marcus L. Lawson v. Pullman-Standard, Laura M. Kelly v. Zayre Department Store, Bill Merriweather v. Overnight Transfer Company, Erbert Locklear v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.

646 F.2d 203 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

White v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co.

646 F.2d 203 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

In Interest of DB

385 So. 2d 83 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)

Bias v. State

1977 OK 122 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1977)

People v. Harflinger

359 N.E.2d 861 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)

Melvin Leroy Tyler v. Warden Lark Norton Y. Beilenson v. Treasurer of the United States

472 F.2d 1077 (Eighth Circuit, 1973)

Carolyn Bradley and Michael Bradley, Infants, by Minerva Bradley, Their Mother and Next Friend v. The School Board of the City of Richmond, Virginia

472 F.2d 318 (Fourth Circuit, 1972)

United States v. Econuel Perry, Jr.

471 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)

Dreyer v. Jalet

349 F. Supp. 452 (S.D. Texas, 1972)

Patrocinia L. Vda De Rodulfa v. United States of America and Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Juliana Caparas Vda Del Rosario v. United States of America and Donald E. Johnson, Administrator of Veterans Affairs

461 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)

De Rodulfa v. United States

461 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 F.2d 671, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-dolan-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack