A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-266, 16.1-267, 17.1-275.5, 19.2-159, 19.2-163, 19.2-163.4:1, and 19.2-336 of the Code of Virginia, relating to abolition of fees; legal representation of indigent defendant; jury trial costs.
HB852 is a criminal justice and court-costs bill that substantially revises Virginia law governing fees assessed in criminal and juvenile cases. The bill removes or prohibits assessment of several costs tied to indigent defense and prosecution, including fees for legal representation paid by the Commonwealth or locality, jury costs in certain circumstances, and other listed court-related charges. It also updates the rules for determining indigency and for compensating court-appointed counsel, while preserving the existing framework for guardian ad litem appointments and compensation in juvenile and child welfare matters.
The bill amends multiple sections of the Code of Virginia to bar courts from taxing indigent defendants, and in some juvenile cases indigent children, for legal representation costs that would otherwise be collected as court debt. It also revises the clerk’s duty to docket prosecution expenses so that legal representation and jury costs are excluded from the statement of costs. In addition, the bill creates a work group under the Indigent Defense Commission to study criminal justice fees and financial assessments, collection practices, burdens on indigent people, and options to phase out or eliminate fees, with interim and final reports due in 2026 and 2027. The first enactment is contingent on reenactment by the 2027 and 2028 General Assemblies, signaling that the bill is intended as part of a longer-term policy process rather than an immediate permanent change.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant: it would narrow the circumstances under which defendants and certain parents or guardians can be charged for court-appointed counsel, reduce or eliminate several categories of court costs, and limit the ability of clerks to convert those costs into judgments against defendants. It also affects the compensation structure for appointed counsel and the reimbursement rules for guardian ad litem services, while leaving in place the state’s broader indigency determination system and appointment procedures. The bill would primarily affect indigent criminal defendants, juvenile respondents, parents in child welfare proceedings, court clerks, appointed attorneys, and the Commonwealth and localities that currently rely on fee collections.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s handling appears cautious but supportive of reform. The measure advanced as a House substitute from Appropriations and was continued to the next session in Finance and Appropriations by a unanimous 14-0 vote, suggesting broad agreement on studying or moving toward fee reduction, but not yet final consensus on immediate implementation. The substitute format and the delayed reenactment requirement indicate an effort to balance reform goals with fiscal and administrative concerns.
The main point of contention is likely the fiscal effect of eliminating or limiting fees that currently offset court, prosecution, and indigent defense costs. The bill’s work group mandate specifically asks stakeholders to examine current collections, the use of fee revenue, and alternatives such as fee caps, which suggests unresolved questions about lost revenue, local and state reimbursement, and how to address existing outstanding balances. Another likely issue is whether the state should immediately abolish these fees or instead phase them out after further study and future reenactment.
HB852 would amend seven sections of the Code of Virginia to reduce or eliminate a range of criminal and juvenile court fees, especially those tied to indigent defense, jury costs, and certain prosecution-related assessments. It would prohibit charging indigent defendants, and in some juvenile cases indigent children, for legal representation costs paid by the Commonwealth or locality, and it would exclude those amounts from clerk-prepared cost statements and judgments. The bill also revises indigency and appointed-counsel compensation provisions and directs the Indigent Defense Commission to study broader fee and financial-assessment practices.
The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s reform goals, but with caution about immediate enactment. The House substitute moved forward in committee, and the Finance and Appropriations vote to continue the bill to the next session was unanimous, indicating no recorded opposition at that stage. The structure of the substitute and the study work group also suggest lawmakers were interested in advancing the issue while deferring final implementation pending further review.
The central contention is fiscal: eliminating fees and court-cost assessments could reduce revenue used to offset indigent defense, prosecution, and court administration expenses. Stakeholders likely differ on whether those costs should be shifted to the state, localities, or eliminated altogether, and on how to handle existing unpaid balances already owed by defendants. The bill’s required work group reflects these unresolved issues, including collection practices, revenue uses, burdens on indigent people, and whether fee caps or phased elimination are preferable to immediate abolition.