A new state law designed to improve legal representation for criminal suspects who can't afford to pay for a lawyer is slowing down the justice system in Angelina County, local judges and attorneys say.

Instead of giving jail inmates quicker access to an attorney, it is doubling the time it takes to get them a lawyer and creating more paperwork, they say.

The Texas Fair Defense Act, or Senate Bill 7, went into effect on Jan. 1. The law focuses on several key areas: "Timely appointment of counsel, method of counsel, method of counsel appointment by courts, reporting of information about indigent representation services and minimum standards for counsel," according to the Texas Senate's Web site.

The bill is also supposed to provide funding to counties to assist in the appointments attorneys for indigent people.

"Texas counties spend approximately $90 million each year on criminal defense for the indigent, but Texas is one of four states that provides no state funding for indigent criminal defense. (S.B. 7) would dedicate $19.7 million for a statewide fund to be used at the county level to provide defense for indigent criminal defendants," according to the Web site.

But Angelina County is not poor enough to qualify for aid, said 217th State District Judge David Wilson.

Under the previous system, newly arrested inmates were taken to the courthouse to appear before one of two district judges. It was then determined who needed court-appointed counsel.

The new guidelines dictate that judges appoint attorneys for indigent defendants on a rotating basis. Attorneys are selected based on where they fall on a list of lawyers willing to be appointed. If a lawyer is skipped out of turn, the judge must document his reason for doing so.

This is where Angelina County is losing ground, judges and lawyers say.

"This new bill is a pain," defense attorney William Agnew said, as he sat in the courtroom waiting for appointment, while court officials called other attorneys next on the list to come back to court. "The old way we did things was a lot better and more efficient. People were pretty much guaranteed a lawyer that day. The bigger problem is we used to see people the minute we got appointed.

"The new system is better for a big county than a medium-sized one like Angelina."

The "jail call" system in use locally the past several years was devised by former 159th State District Judge Gerald Goodwin when problems with overcrowding at the Angelina County Jail began, Wilson said.

"We had attorneys available right then, and appointments were made that day," Wilson said. "It was done in a timely and efficient manner. Lawyers made contact with their clients instantly. The new procedure is lawyers don't have to be present to be appointed. We fax them and they have 24 hours to contact their client.

"A lot (of cases) can be moved -- first offenses and nonviolent crimes," Wilson said. "I can foresee it might cause some more overcrowding to the jail. It's hard too tell. It comes in spurts."

The required extra paperwork adds up fast and consumes time, too, the local officials said.

"I'd say what I was doing in 30 minutes or less is taking an hour," said 159th State District Judge Paul White.

Wilson agreed, saying the time doubles.

"If I don't hear from the attorney, I send my bailiff over to the jail to make sure the inmate has been contacted," he said.

Already one attorney was removed from a court-appointed case because of an untimely response to his client. That could be a liability for the county, Wilson said.

In fact, a former inmate at the Nacogdoches County Jail filed a federal lawsuit last month, alleging he had not received court-appointed counsel in a timely manner. On Dec. 18, Sam Dillon pleaded not guilty to charges filed against him and requested a court-appointed attorney, according to court documents. On Jan. 8 Dillon was notified of a hearing before the justice of the peace on Jan. 31. At the time of notice, Dillon was still without an attorney, according to his lawsuit.

The list of court-appointed attorneys is made up of lawyers who have applied to be on it. Lawyers are not forced to be on the list, White said. Some attorneys in other counties had complained that judges were biased in their appointments.

"To be frank," Wilson said, "I think what we had been doing was an effective way to get people representation in a timely way. Senate Bill 7 includes a few more lawyers who are not as available as the others."

"I think the list will thin out because many of the attorneys are not aware of the timeliness demands," White said.

The previous system appeared to work smoothly and without complaints, White said.

"That is what is so tragic," he said.

Also, S.B. 7 is unclear on several minor technical issues, the judges said. So none of the state's district courts really knows how to comply, which a court must prove it is doing to qualify for funding, Wilson said.

"For example, there are 22 criminal district courts in Harris County and 22 different plans," Wilson said.

And, White said, the law doesn't specify whether a defendant may be assigned the same attorney in separate cases. He's hoping that what he considers to be common sense is not an infraction of the new bill, he said.

Assistant District Attorney Art Bauereiss agreed with the judges and Agnew about S.B. 7's effect locally.

"It slows us down," he said. "It's still pretty early in the ball game, but it's very noticeable. The lawyers are not in court and have to be called in."

District Attorney Clyde Herrington said his main problem with the way S.B. 7 is written is that the mandated rotating selection of lawyers removes discretion in appointments from the local judges.

"That causes problems," he said. "When you get too many rules you come up with problems. I felt that here in Angelina County we were doing a good job. I think the bill was aimed at addressing problems in other counties. I don't think counties doing things in a proper manner should suffer inconveniences. But everyone is working together and it looks like things will be all right —— just a lot more work for the judges."

Long-time local defense attorney David Cook agreed that change was an adjustment, but everyone was working together to adapt.

"Change is always scary, but I'm sure it will all work out," he said. "It is frustrating right now. I'm trying to be positive about it. On the positive side, when I am at the jail talking to clients, I'm seeing a lot more lawyers at the jail quicker now."

For some attorneys who are new to the area the rotating court assignments might be a good thing. Jim Wilson Jr., who just returned to the Angelina/Nacogdoches area last week after working in Dallas County for some time, said it is too soon to tell what kind of impact the new bill will have on him. Wilson was in the process of filing his application for court-appointments on Friday.

"Generally speaking, I think this county probably didn't need (S.B. 7). From what I understand it has been less efficient for the court than it was before," said Wilson (no relation to Judge Wilson). "Angelina County never had the back-room dealings that were a problem in Dallas and Harris counties."

Wilson spoke of a judge who appointed and paid an attorney based on her physical appearance. He also said there was a great disparity in what court appointed attorneys were paid in Dallas County.

"Down here that is not the case," he said. "The quality of judges you have had here made for a more efficient system."

Court-appointed attorneys are paid a $200 flat fee for plea bargain agreements and $500 a day for non-capital murder trials, Wilson said. Before S.B. 7, some attorneys might have been paid less, but now all are paid the same, he said.

[read follow-up editorial]