Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Ohio attorney general is the chief legal ... In 2008 Nancy H. Rogers was appointed following the ... credit scores and then billed them a recurring fee of $29.95 ...
The public defender system is not the only form of indigent defense program offered in the United States. Besides the public defender system, there are two other main alternatives: assigned-counsel system and contract-service system. [3] Assigned-counsel is where the court appoints a private lawyer to defend someone who cannot afford to pay. [3]
In criminal cases where the defendant faces at least one year of imprisonment, the defendant has the right to legal counsel. [13] Although there is a right to legal defense, there is no organized public defender system. Instead, any lawyer can be appointed to provide counsel to a specific defendant, and the defendant can select a specific lawyer.
Appointed by Active Chief Senior; 52 Chief Judge Sara Elizabeth Lioi: Akron: 1960 2007–present 2023–present — G.W. Bush: 49 District Judge John R. Adams: Akron: 1955 2003–present — — G.W. Bush: 53 District Judge Benita Y. Pearson: Youngstown: 1963 2010–present — — Obama: 54 District Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick: Toledo: 1960 2012 ...
A complaint alleges that Franklin County Domestic Relations Judge Kim A. Browne forced a party into a parenting agreement without his attorney present
In each of those instances, a non-attorney would be barred from conducting the representation altogether. One district court found that this policy does not prevent a pro se attorney from recovering fees paid for consultations with outside counsel. [51] Pro se who are not state-licensed attorneys cannot bring up a class action lawsuit. [20]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The Senate reported that it intended fee awards to be "adequate to attract competent counsel" to represent client with civil rights grievances. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a "reasonable attorney's fee" based on the fair market value of the legal services.