Relating To Compensation For Court-appointed Counsel.
Summary
SB263 increases compensation for court-appointed counsel in Hawaii. The bill raises the hourly rate used to calculate appointed-counsel fees from $90 to $150 and doubles the maximum fee caps for several case types, including felony cases, misdemeanor jury trials, jury-waived misdemeanors, appeals, petty misdemeanors, and other administrative or judicial proceedings. It also preserves the court’s ability to authorize payments above the caps when necessary for fair compensation, subject to certification by the court and approval by the administrative judge.
The bill includes an appropriation from general revenues for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to fund the higher compensation levels, with expenditures administered by the Department of Budget and Finance. It amends Hawaii Revised Statutes section 802-5, which governs compensation for appointed counsel, and the changes would affect attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants and other eligible parties in criminal and related proceedings. The bill’s stated effective date is April 23, 2057, which is unusually delayed and may reflect drafting or placeholder language rather than an intended near-term implementation date.
Impact
SB263 would directly amend Hawaii’s court-appointed counsel compensation statute, increasing both the hourly rate and the statutory maximums payable in covered cases. This would raise state spending obligations for indigent defense and related court-appointed representation, with the added appropriation intended to cover the increased costs in the next two fiscal years. The measure would primarily affect appointed defense attorneys, courts that approve compensation, and the state agencies responsible for paying these fees.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests clear support in committee: the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill with amendments by a 5-0 vote. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader concerns or opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a routine judiciary funding and compensation measure rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is fiscal impact, since the bill substantially increases state-paid compensation for appointed counsel and requires an appropriation from general revenues. Another possible issue is the very delayed effective date of April 23, 2057, which stands out and could raise questions about drafting accuracy or legislative intent. Otherwise, the bill’s structure suggests limited substantive disagreement, with the committee amendment and unanimous vote indicating general agreement on the need to raise appointed-counsel pay.