Birt v. State
387 S.E.2d 879, 259 Ga. 800 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court cannot compel an attorney to represent an indigent defendant in a capital case on a pro bono basis when state law statutorily mandates the appointment and compensation of counsel for indigent defendants.
Facts:
- Billy Sunday Birt was an indigent individual who required legal representation for a capital resentencing trial.
- Millard Farmer, Joe Nursey, and Carla Friend (collectively "Farmer") had been serving as Birt's long-time, unpaid (pro bono) legal counsel.
- For the upcoming resentencing trial, Farmer sought to be officially appointed by the court to continue representing Birt.
- Farmer also requested compensation from the state for these legal services, given Birt's inability to pay.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy Sunday Birt was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death in the Jefferson County trial court in 1975.
- After subsequent habeas corpus proceedings, Birt's death sentences were vacated.
- The case was remanded back to the Jefferson County trial court for a new sentencing trial.
- During the resentencing proceedings, Birt's counsel, Farmer, requested to be formally appointed as indigent defense counsel and to be compensated for their services.
- The trial court denied the motion for appointment and compensation but also refused to allow Farmer to withdraw, effectively ordering them to continue representing Birt on a pro bono basis.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted Birt's application for an interlocutory appeal to review the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by requiring an attorney to continue representing an indigent capital defendant on a pro bono basis, while simultaneously refusing to appoint the attorney as official counsel and provide compensation as mandated by state law?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunt, Justice
Yes, the trial court erred by requiring Farmer to represent an indigent defendant without compensation. Georgia law and public policy, as established by statutes like the Georgia Indigent Defense Act (OCGA § 17-12-30 et seq.), explicitly mandate the provision of compensated counsel for indigent defendants, especially in capital felony cases. While attorneys have a professional obligation to perform pro bono work, this general duty does not override specific legislative mandates requiring state-funded compensation. Since the trial court insisted Farmer was the best-equipped counsel and must remain on the case, the court was legally required to appoint Farmer and ensure reasonable compensation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the statutory right to compensated counsel for indigent defendants in Georgia, clarifying that a lawyer's general professional duty to provide pro bono service does not override specific legislative mandates for state-funded indigent defense. The ruling prevents courts from exploiting an attorney's prior pro bono involvement to deny statutory compensation for future required representation. It ensures that the financial burden of indigent defense in capital cases falls upon the state, as intended by the legislature, rather than on individual attorneys.
