permits several counties to establish
an office that serves more than one
county. Attorneys employed by the
office are not permitted to engage in
the private practice of child welfare
If the county in which the court
sits has such a program, the court is
required to appoint an attorney from
the office unless there is a conflict of
interest or other reason to appoint a
HB 3003 also authorizes counties
to create a managed assigned
counsel program to provide legal
representation for parents and
children in cases in which an
appointment is required under Sec.
107.012 and 107.013 of the Family
A judge in a county served by a
managed assigned counsel program
must make appointments required under Sec. 107.012 and 107.013 of the Family Code from the program’s
public appointment list unless there is a conflict of interest or other reason to appoint a different attorney
from the list maintained by the court of attorneys qualified for appointment under Sec. 107.012 or 107.013.
In order to be placed on the program’s list, attorneys must apply with the program, meet all education and
training requirements under Sec. 107.004 and 107.031, and be approved by the program director or review
committee, as applicable.
Having been passed during the same legislative session and covering the same subject matter, it is not
surprising that the appointment provisions of SB 1876 and HB 3003 are in conflict. So how does one comply
with both laws? The answer lies in the conflict provision of SB 1876.
It provides that Chapter 37 controls
when there is a conflict between the provisions of Chapter 37 “and a specific provision relating to a court.” It
is unlikely that the programs established under HB 3003 would be considered “specific provisions relating
to a court” because the attorneys would not be selected for the programs by a court. They would either be
hired by the office of parent/child representation or be on a list prepared by the managed assigned counsel
program. Therefore, SB 1876 should not trump the appointment procedures provided by HB 3003 and a
judge in a county with one of these programs should follow the appointment procedures required under HB
3003 and not be required to resort to the lists maintained under Chapter 37 unless there is a conflict of
interest or other reason required to appoint a different attorney from the list maintained by the court.
Senate Bill 1369 – New Reporting Requirements Effective September 1, 2016
Most judges are familiar with the Supreme Court of Texas order (Misc. Docket No. 07-9188)
reporting of fees paid during a month in the amount $500 or more for each appointment made by a judge of
any district, county or probate court, court master, or court referee of a position for which any type of fee may
be paid in a civil, probate, or family law case under Titles 1, 2 and 4 of the Family Code. All reports required
under the order are prepared by the district and county clerks for the courts they serve.
Differences Between Supreme Court Order and SB 1369 Reporting Requirements
Effective September 1, 2016, Senate Bill 1369 requires more comprehensive reporting than what is
currently required under the Supreme Court’s order. SB 1369 requires reporting from appellate, justice and
...it is not
are in conflict.
So how does one