The family courts allow court-appointed child representatives and guardian ad litems in divorce court (family court) to extort families and impoverish them by ordering payment to them of $300 to $1200 per hr - often with final bills of >> $50,000, in addition to paying outrageous rates to private attorneys for each parent, as well as paying for psychological counselors and other court appointed persons who evaluate the family situation. As the average American family makes around $40,000 - $60,000, this guarantees that families will be impoverished. then the judges order the families home sold, children's college funds confiscated, and all assets sold to pay these fees.
This surely is not in the best interest of the children as the state law mandates!
Stand up and be counted - complain to the press, your House Representative, your State Senator, you Illinois Senator Durbin, and your Illinois Representative, and your Cook County Board Member.
March 14,
2012
TO: All Members
of Judiciary I- Civil Law Committee
FROM: Milijana
Vlastelica, On behalf of all victims of court-ordered child
representation
Subject: The
Judiciary’s Objection to $150/Hour Fee Cap to the Court-Appointed
Children’s
Attorneys as Provided in House Bill 5544 Deviates from the
Legislature’s
Established Practices; Some Possible Solutions
Most of us are
still recovering from the Judiciary’s objection [February 29, 2012] to establishing the fee caps for
the court-appointed children’s attorneys in divorce cases
especially that this objection is not in sync with the Legislature’s
well-established practice to set the exact hourly rate for other types of
court-appointed attorneys. For example, in death-penalty cases, the Legislature
did not leave it up to the court-appointed private attorney to set his own
hourly rate, but it capped his fees at $125/hour (adjusted for COLA) per 725
ILCS 124-10. In non-death penalty cases, attorney’s fees are based on 725 ILCS
5/113-3, set at $40/hour for court time and $30/hour for non-court
times.
Therefore, it is
difficult to comprehend where this rationale, which some Representatives
expressed that the court-appointed children’s attorney should be
making as much money as privately retained attorneys, comes from.
Our research
indicates that nowhere in this country are the court-appointed attorneys allowed
to set their own hourly rate except in Illinois in the Family
Court.
Per the attached
research article entitled, “Issues Relating to Guardians ad Litem”, dated
January 2003, the Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau conducted a study of the
practices that exist in Hawaii and on the mainland with respect to
guardian ad litem and appointed counsel in child protective cases and in the
Family Court. The Bureau’s research reveals that the court-appointed guardians
in other states are paid either flat fee per case or block
of cases per contract or fixed hourly rate. For example,
in Alaska attorney GALs receive $70 to $80 an hour; in Arkansas, guardian ad
litems are salaried between $37,000 - $57,000 per year depending on experience;
Attorney ad litem contractors who are part-time receive $800 per case per year;
In California, Contract attorneys are paid flat rates per event. The juvenile
court panel of attorneys are compensated at a rate of $75 per hour in court and
$50 for out of court work. If an attorney had twenty-five cases, the attorney
would receive $20,000 per year; In Colorado, some attorneys were compensated on
an hourly basis and others on a flat-fee basis; most attorneys who represent
children in dependency and neglect cases currently are paid a flat fee of $1,040
per case for 24 months of representation. If the case has not yet closed after
24 months, attorneys may bill at hourly rates of $45 for out-of court work and
$55 for in-court work (which is the same rate paid to other public attorneys in
Colorado).
Upon the Hawaii
Legislative Bureau’s comprehensive research, the Bureau concluded and
recommended that, “Attorneys providing guardian ad litem services should be
compensated equivalent to other ‘public service’
attorneys”.
Here in
Illinois, without any formal studies, some members of Judiciary concluded that
the court-appointed children’s attorney in divorce cases, should be making as
much money as mom’s and dad’s privately retained attorneys. As shown above, this
practice deviates from the well-established standards that the Illinois
Legislature adopted in the past which is to cap the fees for all
court-appointed attorneys; and, it also deviates from the standards
established by the rest of the United States.
Therefore, this
letter is a plea to those members of Judiciary to reconsider their position, and
to realize that the only solution is capping the fees at $150/hour or
establishing some type of flat amounts.
If we set the
court-appointed children’s attorneys fee to be a flat $1000 per case as some
other states are doing it, but with the explicit provisions that they cannot
withdraw from the case until the case is concluded, and that they must
attend all hearings and all status dates where they are not needed (because they
are currently doing it, and billing the parents), I guarantee that all the cases
would be concluded much faster. The divorcing parents would have money left for
their children’s education; the courts would not be overbooked; we may not need
as many family court judges, and this would help the Illinois budget as
well.
In the
alternative, if some
Representatives continue objecting to the fee cap of $150/hour and/or insist
that the court-appointed child representative should be making as much money as
privately retained mom’s and dad’s attorneys, then, perhaps the Legislature can
afford the parents some remedy by revoking the absolute immunity
that the Courts recently gave to the court-appointed children’s attorneys. If
the court-appointed children’s attorneys want to be, and deserve to be at the
same pay level or higher than the mom’s and dad’s privately retained attorneys,
then they also should be held accountable for their actions and professional
negligence. If mom’s or dad’s attorney provides substandard level of service, he
or she can be sued for legal malpractice. The court-appointed child
representatives, on the other hand, cannot be sued for professional negligence
or intentional tort no matter how much they damage the child. Nowhere on Planet
Earth does this exist that a private professional in a capacity of a
court-appointee sets his own hourly rate, can make as much as one million in
annual revenue, and not be held liable for his work or lack
thereof.
In
addition, I would recommend that the judges have no input as to which private
attorney is awarded these appointments. Currently, the same judges always
appoint the same child representatives. This practice, where a trial court can
award an extremely lucrative business to a private attorney, provides a
breeding ground for corruption, whether it is happening or not.
