Maine Senate Bill LD2195

Maine 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/10/26
• Engrossed: 3/18/26
• Enrolled: 3/19/26
• Passed: 3/25/26

Caption

An Act to Prohibit the Appointment or Assignment of an Attorney to Provide Indigent Legal Services Without That Attorney's Consent

Summary

LD 2195 amends Maine law governing indigent legal services to prohibit the court from appointing or assigning an attorney to provide those services unless the attorney has first consented in advance. The bill also requires that the attorney be an assigned counsel and that the commission determine the attorney is eligible for appointment or assignment in the relevant type of court proceeding. In effect, it changes the existing framework for court-appointed indigent defense work by making attorney consent an express prerequisite to compensation for such appointments or assignments. The bill revises the heading of 4 MRSA §1802-A to reflect that it now addresses court appointment and assignment of counsel, and it adds a new subsection setting out the conditions under which compensation may be paid. The measure was enacted as Public Law chapter 639 and approved by the Governor on April 3, 2026.

Impact

This bill affects Maine’s indigent legal services statutes by limiting when attorneys may be appointed or assigned and paid for representation of indigent clients. It narrows the authority of courts and the commission by requiring advance attorney consent and eligibility determination before compensation can be provided, which may change how the state secures counsel for criminal and other court proceedings involving indigent parties. The practical effect is to protect attorneys from involuntary assignments while preserving the state’s assigned-counsel system for those who agree to participate.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no detailed public discussion to gauge support or opposition. The bill’s enactment and approval by the Governor indicate it ultimately received sufficient legislative and executive support. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to have been framed as an administrative and professional-consent reform rather than a controversial policy overhaul.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between attorney autonomy and the state’s need to ensure a sufficient pool of lawyers for indigent defense. Supporters would likely favor the consent requirement as a safeguard against compelled service and a way to align assignments with attorney willingness and eligibility. Opponents, if any, would likely worry that requiring advance consent could make it harder for courts to fill indigent defense assignments quickly, especially in rural or high-volume jurisdictions.