ALBANY, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) - The New York Office of Victim Services didn’t exceed its authority by limiting the fees lawyers representing crime victims could charge, the state’s highest court ruled, in a decision a dissenting judge said will make it harder for claimants to receive benefits.
New York law authorized OVS to pay “reasonable” fees, up to a total of $1,000, to lawyers representing claimants to the victim-restitution fund. In 2016, OVS amended its regulations, limiting fees to the administrative and judicial review phases of a claim and deleting a prior statement that claimants have the right to legal representation at every stage.
Wenceslao Juarez and others sued to challenge the restrictions, saying OVS had arbitrarily reduced the amount of money lawyers could bill the program for representing claimants. Plaintiff Michelle Soriano filed an emergency application for moving and storage expenses so she could escape a domestic abuser and received $1,400, but OVS denied her request for attorney fees because they weren’t related to administrative or judicial review.
An intermediate appeals court ruled the restrictions were arbitrary and capricious, but the the New York Court of Appeals disagreed in a Feb. 18 decision. The plaintiffs focused on the statutory language declaring OVS "shall" reimburse attorneys' fees, the high court ruled, while ignoring the limitation that fees must be “reasonable.” That term isn’t defined in the statute, the court ruled, leaving room for the agency to determine which fees are appropriate.
“The express purpose of Executive Law article 22 is to provide `aid, care and support for crime victims,’ not to promote economic activities and income for attorneys to enable them to render services that can be provided adequately by others trained and available to do so,” the court ruled.
“OVS's regulations defining `reasonable’ attorneys' fees represent an attempt to conserve its resources for use in the compensation of losses suffered by crime victims, rather than for attorneys' fee awards it deemed unreasonable.”
Judge Jenny Rivera dissented, saying the decision will hurt claimants like Soriano who need a lawyer’s help through every step of the victim assistance program.
“Her best chance in obtaining potentially life-preserving relief quickly was through the help of an attorney dedicated to her case,” the dissenting judge wrote. “The legislature did not authorize OVS to effectively deny attorneys' fees to the majority of crime victims and their families.”