The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

No retroactive appointment of official defense counsel

OG 1994 63Other CourtOct 27, 1993Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The accused, who had initially chosen private defense with his lawyer, sought retroactive appointment of an official defense counsel. The court refused the request, holding that retroactive appointment is generally inappropriate by analogy to civil legal aid practice and that no compelling reasons justified an exception. The lawyer’s private cost risk and duty to seek adequate advance payment were emphasized.

Omnilex headnote

Retroactive appointment of official defense counsel is, by analogy to the principles governing civil legal aid, generally not appropriate; a party who initially opts for private defense and thereby accepts the associated cost risk cannot later obtain an official mandate retroactively absent compelling reasons. The lawyer’s duty to require adequate advance payment supports this allocation of risk. A retroactive appointment requires specific circumstances that justify deviation from this rule; mere subsequent inconvenience or non-payment is insufficient.

Full text

Dem Antrag des Angeklagten auf Einsetzung eines a.o. amtlichen Verteidigers mit rückwirkender Geltung kann nicht stattgegeben werden. Der Angeklagte hat sich anfänglich im Einvernehmen mit seinem Anwalt für eine private Verteidigung entschieden. Dabei hat es sein Bewenden. Analog zur Praxis betreffend die zivilprozessuale unentgeltliche Rechtspflege - die amtliche Verteidigung ist vergleichbar mit dem Mandat eines unentgeltlichen Rechtsbeistandes - ist es regelmässig nicht angebracht, amtliche Verteidiger mit rückwirkender Kraft zu ernennen (vgl. LGVE 1987 I Nr. 38). Ein Rechtsanwalt, der ein privates Mandatsverhältnis mit entsprechender Bezahlung eingeht, trägt das damit verbundene Kostenrisiko. Es gehört denn auch zu den Pflichten des Luzerner Rechtsanwaltes, angemessene Kostenvorschüsse zu verlangen (vgl. Standesregeln des Luzerner Anwaltsverbandes, Ziff. II/19). Dass dies vorliegend nicht möglich gewesen sei, behauptet der Rechtsbeistand des Angeklagten selber nicht. Auch sonst sind keine Gründe dargetan, welche zwingend für eine Rückwirkung des amtlichen Verteidigermandats sprechen würden.

Keywords

criminal defenseofficial defense counselretroactive appointmentprivate mandatelegal aidadvance paymentcost risk

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether an official defense counsel may be appointed with retroactive effect after an initial private-defense choice.

Extracted holding

The request cannot be granted; after the initial consensual choice of private defense, the situation should remain as it is, and no compelling reasons for retroactive effect were shown.

Extracted reasoning

By analogy to civil legal aid practice, retroactive appointment of counsel is generally inappropriate. A lawyer who enters into a private mandate bears the associated cost risk and is expected to request adequate advance payments. The defense did not show that this was impossible or that other mandatory reasons justified retroactivity.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.