Caron v. Betit
| Decision Date | 05 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 189-71,189-71 |
| Parties | Vivian CARON v. Joseph W. BETIT, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Social Welfare. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Putter & Carrington, Arlington, Vt., and Michael Meltsner, and Henry Freedman, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.
James M. Jeffords, Atty. Gen., and Benson D. Scotch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before SHANGRAW, C. J., and BARNEY, SMITH, KEYSER and DALEY, JJ.
This is a suit to recover attorney's fees The plaintiff, a welfare recipient, presented her claim to the Department of Social Welfare for financial assistance to enable her to pay the fees, but her claim was rejected. This appeal followed.
The matter took shape when the plaintiff was notified by the department that she had been classified as 'employable' even though she had an infant child. This classification would require her to cooperate with the department in seeking and accepting gainful employment.
She sought to challenge this reclassification and turned to Vermont Legal Aid for professional assistance. That agency declined to represent her in her hearing on the issue of her reclassification. The assistant director of Vermont Legal Aid did not overturn the decision of the Bennington staff attorney that the plaintiff had not established that she had a meritorious case, although the assistant director disagreed with that conclusion.
In the meantime the plaintiff went ahead and obtained the services of private counsel for the hearing before the Board. The Board confirmed the reclassification but suspended its operation until her next semi-annual review, as provided by department procedures. She continued to receive assistance. At the time of the review she was taken out of the 'employable' classification and her assistance continued.
Her attorney presented his bill and her application for assistance to pay it followed. He also represented her before the Board with respect to his fees, and continues to represent her on this appeal. The issue is the propriety of the Department of Social Welfare's refusal to make an assistance grant to the plaintiff to pay her private attorney.
Perhaps it is important to state that, in this case, the issue is not one of denial of counsel, or of refusal to permit counsel to appear on behalf of a welfare client. The issue is the right to insist on payment for privately retained counsel. The distinction is important, since this Court has retained the power to require attorneys to serve and protect the vital interests of uncounselled litigants where circumstances demand it. See In re Mears, 124 Vt. 131, 137, 198 A.2d 27 (1964).
One of the problems with the issue now before us is its ex post facto nature. The department is asked, after the fact, to pay a bill for services already provided, without previous notice or opportunity to see to their provision in any other manner, and without an opportunity to pass judgment, in advance, on their necessity. That payment is sought to be made without the benefit of authorization by statute or regulation. Such enactments represent the ordinary manner by which the judgment of the community as to the necessity and appropriateness of the accompanying tax burden is given legal sanction. Without a statute, justification for the payment must be found in some constitutional compulsion.
Such justification must be guardedly applied when support is found to be not in the express constitutional language, but inferentially derived. To enshrine a doctrine as a constitutional principle is, as a practical matter, to extract it from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Armitage
...require attorneys to serve and protect the vital interests of uncounselled litigants where circumstances demand it." Caron v. Betit, 131 Vt. 53, 55, 300 A.2d 618, 619 (1972). Public defenders, like all members of the bar, are subject to such appointment. Accordingly, we deny the motion to T......
-
State ex rel. Scott v. Roper, 65918
...Court of Napa County, 150 Cal.App.3d 388, 197 Cal.Rptr. 737 (1 Dist.1983), In Interest of D.B., 385 So.2d 83 (Fla.1980), Caron v. Betit, 131 Vt. 53, 300 A.2d 618 (1972). ...
-
Menin v. Menin
...377, 507 P.2d 989; Petition of Waite, 143 Mont. 321, 389 P.2d 407; cf. Dade County v. McCrary, 260 So.2d 543 (Fla.App.); Caron v. Betit, 131 Vt. 53, 300 A.2d 618; Peace v. Peace, 288 N.E.2d 602 28 L.Ed.2d 113, which was decided in 1971. The Court in Boddie held that it was a violation of du......
-
Morissette v. Morissette
...the courts of Vermont. However, in civil cases a plaintiff has no constitutional right to have counsel provided. Caron v. Betit, 131 Vt. 53, 55, 300 A.2d 618, 619 (1972) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 270, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1021, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970)). Therefore, our rule that nonco......