Relating To Compensation For Court-appointed Counsel.
Summary
HB396 increases compensation for court-appointed counsel in Hawaii criminal and related proceedings. It raises the hourly rate used to calculate appointed-counsel pay from $90 to $150 and doubles the maximum fee caps for several case types, including felony cases, misdemeanor jury trials, misdemeanor cases resolved without a jury, appeals, petty misdemeanors, and certain other administrative or judicial proceedings involving juvenile and family court matters referenced in the statute. The bill also preserves the court’s ability to authorize payment above the listed caps when the court certifies that additional compensation is necessary for fair payment and the administrative judge approves it.
The measure includes a general fund appropriation of $2,890,000 for each of fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to support the higher compensation levels, with the Department of Budget and Finance responsible for expenditure. The act is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2025, and amends Section 802-5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing appointed counsel compensation.
Impact
HB396 directly amends Hawaii law on compensation for court-appointed counsel by changing the statutory hourly rate and fee ceilings in HRS section 802-5(b). The bill increases state spending obligations through a two-year general fund appropriation and affects attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants and parties in criminal, juvenile, and other covered proceedings. It also impacts the courts, which retain authority to approve fees above the statutory maximums under specified circumstances.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with one dissenting vote, then moved through Senate Ways and Means unanimously, and later passed conference in both chambers without opposition. The pattern indicates general agreement that the compensation rates needed to be increased, likely reflecting concern about maintaining adequate representation and keeping appointed counsel available.
Contention
The main policy issue appears to be the cost of increasing appointed-counsel compensation versus the need to provide fair payment for court-appointed work. The single dissent in Senate Judiciary suggests at least some concern about the fiscal impact or the size of the increase, but later unanimous or near-unanimous votes indicate those concerns were not enough to block the measure. No committee transcripts are available, so the record does not show any detailed debate over the appropriateness of the new hourly rate, fee caps, or the size of the appropriation.