Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  25 / 48 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 25 / 48 Next Page
Page Background

25

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

law.

25

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

different attorney.

26

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

Code.

27

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.

28

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.

29

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.

30

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.

31

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)

32

that mandates

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.

33

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

surprising that

the appointment

provisions...

are in conflict.

So how does one

comply with

both laws?”