Judiciary committee hears mixed views on extending pay and appointment rules for court‑appointed private attorneys

The Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony Tuesday on three bills—LD 21 93, LD 21 94 and LD 21 95—intended to clarify when and how private attorneys may be paid or appointed to provide indigent legal services.

Senator Anne Carney, who presented the bills, said LD 21 93 would reinstate a temporary measure that had expired on 02/01/2026 and extend it to 02/01/2028 so courts and the system have a clear payment path for certain court-appointed private attorneys. "We originally enacted this provision in order to sort out who compensates who," she said, calling the change a reinstatement of prior law.

Julie Finn, representing the Judicial Branch, testified in support of LD 21 93 and described it as "a stopgap measure" that allowed off‑roster attorneys to be paid while the state addressed staffing shortages. Finn said reports submitted on the prior emergency law showed that some appeals—"in the vicinity of 25 to 30"—remained pending without counsel and that the prior authority had been particularly helpful for child‑protective appeals. "Every case matters," she said.

The Maine Commission on Public Defense Services (MCPDS) urged caution. Executive Director Veil Tarpenian testified in opposition to LD 21 93, saying the authority granted previously "was very little used" and that much of the work ultimately was handled by PDS attorneys. Tarpenian said the uncounseled list has fallen to "under 125 people and under 150 cases" and expressed concern about PDS's limited audit authority over invoices for bench‑appointed attorneys and the risk of litigation if PDS tried to challenge bills.

The Maine State Bar Association, through attorney Jim Cohen, also warned of supervision and training gaps for bench‑appointed attorneys and urged the committee to rely on MCPDS as the central assignment mechanism. Cohen highlighted a timing risk: if an attorney is formally appointed before consenting, the attorney may later withdraw and leave the client without representation.

Committee members asked detailed questions about how many cases had used the prior emergency authority; witnesses cited roughly "10 cases, 11 attorneys" specifically affected by the provision in some examples and noted that many bench appointments did not result in submitted invoices. Representatives pressed staff and witnesses on whether possible amendments could narrow coverage to particular case types—such as child‑protective appeals—where staffing is most difficult. Finn and Tarpenian said they had discussed potential amendments and that at least one amendment might be filed before the work session.

The committee did not take a final vote on any of the bills Tuesday. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for drafting clarity, fiscal analysis and for any amendment to make clear PDS's role in determining eligibility and ensuring training and supervision. Representative Caruso asked whether a fiscal note existed for LD 21 93; staff answered that no fiscal note was yet available.

What’s next: committee members said they expect to consider amendments at a later work session once drafting and fiscal analysis are available.