“The Nail in the Coffin” for Attorneys Falsely Billing Harris County on CPS Cases

Reprinted from the September 16, 2014 Mongoose newsletter. This is perhaps the most important development in the CPS billing scandal reported in this newsletter because the false billers were claiming that there was nothing wrong with the appointed attorney billing for work done by another lawyer.

A wise probate judge in Austin who reads The Mongoose e-mailed me about an appellate case that holds exactly what I have been saying: a lawyer appointed by a judge as an ad litem cannot and should not bill for work done by other attorneys (except in unusual circumstances and then only after informing the court). Let’s see these “CPS appointment law firms” and mega-billers explain this:

When a guardian ad litem is appointed, the trial court intends that appointed attorney to personally protect the minor’s interests and to act as an officer of the court. Accordingly, it is generally not anticipated or reasonable for a guardian ad litem to delegate his ad litem responsibilities to other attorneys. We recognize, however, that extenuating circumstances may occasionally arise which justify another attorney’s involvement. In those situations, prior approval from the trial court of the second attorney’s involvement is preferable when time and circumstances permit; when prior approval is not possible or practical, a subsequent finding by the court that the additional attorney’s services were reasonable and necessary will suffice. ….We hold that a guardian ad litem may not be compensated for time expended by other attorneys, unless the trial court has made a specific finding that the other attorney’s services were reasonable and necessary under a particular extenuating circumstance.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd. v. Gamez, 151 S.W.3d 574, 588 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2004, no pet.)(citations omitted)(emphasis added).

Texas Family Code Section 107.015(d) says the voucher submitted to the county for payment by the ad litem on a CPS case shall list, “…the fees charged and hours worked by the guardian ad litem or attorney ad litem.” The statute does not say the voucher can include hours charged or worked by, “the attorney ad litem or her associate or designated representative.”

Remember what Judge David Farr told the Houston Chronicle last week:

Judge David Farr, the administrative judge of the county’s nine family courts, said he believes the law is clear that only the lawyer appointed to a case may be paid.

I have rewritten my legal article that explains in detail why it is not proper for a person appointed attorney ad litem to bill for work done by other attorneys in light of the Gamez case. Click here to read my revised article.