(7) FINANCIAL DISCREPANCIES; FRAUD; FALSE INFORMATION.–
(a) If the court learns of discrepancies between the application or motion and the actual financial status of the person found to be indigent or indigent for costs, the court shall determine whether the public defender, office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, or private attorney shall continue representation or whether the authorization for any other due process services previously authorized shall be revoked. The person may be heard regarding the information learned by the court. If the court, based on the information, determines that the person is not indigent or indigent for costs, the court shall order the public defender, office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel, or private attorney to discontinue representation and revoke the provision of any other authorized due process services.
(b) If the court has reason to believe that any applicant, through fraud or misrepresentation, was improperly determined to be indigent or indigent for costs, the matter shall be referred to the state attorney. Twenty-five percent of any amount recovered by the state attorney as reasonable value of the services rendered, including fees, charges, and costs paid by the state on the person’s behalf, shall be remitted to the Department of Revenue for deposit into the Grants and Donations Trust Fund within the Justice Administrative Commission. Seventy-five percent of any amount recovered shall be remitted to the Department of Revenue for deposit into the General Revenue Fund.
(c) A person [even an attorney] who knowingly provides [files] false information to the clerk or the court in seeking a determination of indigent status under this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Criminal Lawyer Richard Hornsby's thoughts on legal related issues, current events, and popular culture.
Mr. Hornsby,
I just read this article and you make a good sense to me in your comments, from my understanding the only lawyer NOT working pro bono was Jose Baez right? How convenient for him to make his own fees, this guy is unbelievable. I certainly would like to see his detailed finances book. Do you believe we will ever see it?
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/3/19/judge_grants_anthony39s_motion_for_indigency.html
“The question is, were there fair terms when the contract was made for Jose Baez to keep the money and stay on this counsel,” said Richard Hornsby, a defense attorney.
Hornsby said $200,000 is not a lot of money to fund a capital murder case, but said how money is “handled” can play into legal ethical questions.
“If he has a financial incentive, the less money he spends, the more money he keeps,” Hornsby said. “Than obviously that creates a big conflict of interest.”
Thank you very much!!!
Excellent article, Mr. Hornsby.
My God, though. This family, the Anthonys, and their attorneys sold Caylee’s photos, videos and story for money to defend her mother/murderer. How can that possibly be legal, let alone ethical? And since when is it legal for a defendant’s defense team to fund the defense? Even if it’s a grant from one of those attorney’s nonprofit organization. The conflict of interest is apparent. Is this legal? How can it be?
I would appear the not only did Casey sell Caylee’s images, but George, Cindy & possibly Lee all did, too. What complete moral bankruptcy. It makes me sick! That poor creature. No one respected this child in that family. And she was so adorably. Why?