Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 15-12-21 (2026)

Appointment and Compensation of Counsel - Trial Court.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If it appears to the trial court that an indigent defendant is entitled to counsel, that the indigent defendant does not expressly waive the right to assistance of counsel, and that the indigent defendant is not able financially or otherwise to obtain the assistance of counsel through another indigent defense system for the circuit, the court shall appoint counsel to represent and assist the defendant. It shall be the duty of the appointed counsel, as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar, to represent and assist the indigent defendant to the best of his or her ability.

(b) If it appears to the trial court in a delinquency case, need of supervision case, or other judicial proceeding in which a juvenile is a party that the juvenile is entitled to counsel and that the juvenile is not able financially or otherwise to obtain the assistance of counsel or that appointed counsel is otherwise required by law, the court shall appoint counsel to represent and assist the juvenile or act in the capacity of guardian ad litem for the juvenile. It shall be the duty of the appointed counsel, as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar, to represent and assist the juvenile to the best of his or her ability.

(c) If it appears to the trial court that the parent, guardian, or custodian of a juvenile who is a party in a judicial proceeding is entitled to counsel and the party is unable to afford counsel, upon request, the court shall appoint counsel to represent and assist the parent, guardian, or custodian. It shall be the duty of the appointed counsel, as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar, to represent and assist the party to the best of his or her ability.

(d) If the appropriate method for providing indigent defense services is by appointed counsel in a case described in subsection (a), (b), or (c), including cases tried de novo in circuit court on appeal from a juvenile proceeding, the appointed counsel shall be entitled to receive for his or her services a fee to be approved by the trial court. The amount of the fee shall be based on the number of hours spent by the attorney in working on the case and shall be computed for time reasonably expended on the case and capped as follows:

(1) In cases where the original charge is a capital offense or a charge that carries a possible sentence of life without parole, the rate shall be one hundred twenty dollars ($120) per hour and there shall be no limit on the total fee.

(2) Except for cases covered by subdivision (1), in cases where the original charge is a Class A felony, the rate shall be one hundred dollars ($100) per hour and the total fee shall not exceed six thousand dollars ($6,000).

(3) In cases where the original charge is a Class B felony, the rate shall be eighty dollars ($80) per hour and the total fee shall not exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000).

(4) In cases where the original charge is a Class C or Class D felony, the rate shall be eighty dollars ($80) per hour and the total fee shall not exceed three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500).

(5)a. In juvenile cases, the rate shall be seventy dollars ($70) per hour and the total fee shall not exceed four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500), except as provided in paragraph b.

b. In juvenile dependency cases, the total fee for guardians ad litem shall not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), provided that a guardian ad litem shall receive no more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) during the first 18 months after his or her appointment to a case, and no more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) during each 12 months thereafter. If a guardian ad litem does not receive the full fee during the initial 18-month or subsequent 12-month period, any remaining fees may be carried over until the final disposition, his or her appointment as guardian ad litem ends, or his or her total fee for the case reaches five thousand dollars ($5,000), whichever occurs first.

(6) In appointments made pursuant to Section 22-11A-35 or Section 22-52-14, the rate shall be seventy dollars ($70) per hour and the total fee shall not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500).

(7) In all other cases, the rate shall be fifty-five dollars ($55) per hour and the total fee shall not exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(e)(1) Counsel shall also be entitled to be reimbursed for any nonoverhead expenses reasonably incurred in the representation of his or her client, with any expense in excess of three hundred dollars ($300) subject to advance approval by the trial court as necessary for the indigent defense services and as a reasonable cost or expense.

(2) Reimbursable expenses shall not include overhead expenses.

(3) Fees and expenses of all experts, investigators, and others rendering indigent defense services to be used by counsel for an indigent defendant shall be approved in advance by the trial court as necessary for the indigent defense services and as a reasonable cost or expense.

(4) Retrials of any case shall be considered a new case for billing purposes.

(5) Upon review, the director may authorize interim payment of the attorney fees or expenses, or both.

(f)(1) Within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the trial, ruling on a motion for a new trial, or after an acquittal or other judgment disposing of the case, not to exceed 120 days, counsel shall submit a bill for services rendered to the office.

(2) The bill shall be accompanied by a certification by the trial court that counsel provided representation to the indigent defendant, that the matter has been concluded, and that to the best of his or her knowledge the bill is reasonable based on the defense provided.

(3) The trial court need not approve the items included on the bill or the amount of the bill, but may provide any information requested by the office or the indigent defense advisory board relating to the representation.

(4) The bill for compensation of appointed counsel shall be submitted to the office.

(5) After review and approval, the office shall recommend to the state Comptroller that the bill be paid.

(6) The office may forward any individual bill or cumulative billing data to the indigent defense advisory board for review and comment prior to approval.

(7)a. The indigent defense advisory board shall require any attorney who submits billing totaling more than 2,000 work hours in a fiscal year to provide an explanation establishing good cause grounds for the excess hours.

b. The board may recommend remedial action for excess work, including, but not limited to, suspension of appointment, reimbursement of funds, or referral to the Alabama State Bar or the Office of the Attorney General.

(Acts 1963, No. 526, p. 1136, §§2, 3; Acts 1971, No. 2420, p. 3851; Acts 1981, No. 81-717, p. 1204, §2; Acts 1984, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 84-793, p. 198, §1; Act 99-427, p. 759, §1; Act 2011-678, p. 1862, §6; Act 2015-185, p. 476, §3; Act 2023-368, §1; Act 2024-161, §1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 102 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Moody v. State, 888 So. 2d 532 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moody v. State, 888 So. 2d 532 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 22× “[12] At these and other pretrial hearings, Moody challenged the constitutionality of § 15-12-21, Ala.Code 1975, the Alabama statute authorizing the payment of attorney fees and other expenses incurred by counsel for an indigent defendant.”

Lyons v. Norris, 829 So. 2d 748 (Ala. 2002). · cites it 23× “One of the attorneys sued the comptroller in his individual capacity for negligence and wantonness, while another one of the attorneys sought certification of a putative class consisting of all attorneys appointed pursuant to § 15-12-21, Ala.Code 1975, to represent indigent…”

May v. State, 672 So. 2d 1307 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 17× “(A 1984 amendment to § 15-12-21, "Appointment and compensation of counselTrial court" added to subsection (d) the following language: " Retrials of a case shall be considered *1308 a new case.”

Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012). · cites it 3× “” Ala. Code §15-12-21 (d) (1995). Although death penalty litigation is plainly time intensive, 1 the State capped at $1,000 fees recoverable by capital defense attorneys for out-of-court work.”

Roberts v. Roberts, 189 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). · cites it 20× “This appeal raises the questions whether the Jefferson Circuit Court (“the trial court”) awarded an unreasonable fee to a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of a child in a divorce case, whether the trial court erred in determining that the guardian ad…”

Moody v. Thomas, 89 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (N.D. Ala. 2015). · cites it 11× “The comptroller refused, citing Ala.Code § 15-12-21. Id. at 566. The State petitioned the ACCA for a writ of prohibition, requesting that the court quash all orders of the trial qourt that directed the comptroller to immediately pay the funds requested by Moody’s counsel.”

Hunt v. State, 940 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Alabama Code section 15-12-21 (1975) provided, at the time of Mr.”

Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). · cites it 2× “[4] See Ala. Code § 15-12-21 (Supp. 1984); Alaska Stat.”

Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (2014). · cites it 2× “1993) (quoting Ala.Code § 15-12-21(d) (1984) ), aff'd 662 So.”

Ex Parte Grayson, 479 So. 2d 76 (Ala. 1985). · cites it 3× “The counsel compensation statute, § 15-12-21, then, does not deprive petitioner of due process and equal protection of the laws.”

Bush v. State, 695 So. 2d 70 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “The appellant further contends that Alabama's system for compensating attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants set out in § 15-12-21 is unconstitutional in that it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment…”

McWhorter v. State, 781 So. 2d 257 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “Specifically, the appellant argues that § 15-12-21, Ala.Code 1975, is unconstitutional because by limiting compensation to $1,000 for out-of-court work, based on a $20 hourly rate, the statute assures that an appointed attorney in a capital case receives no compensation beyond…”

Show all 102 citing cases →

— Ala. Code § 15-12-21(a) — 2 cases

Hutchinson v. State, 111 So. 3d 754 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).

Thrower v. State, 357 So. 2d 386 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978).

— Ala. Code § 15-12-21(b) — 4 cases

Lewis v. Hitt, 370 So. 2d 1369 (Ala. 1979).

Roberts v. Roberts, 189 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “This appeal raises the questions whether the Jefferson Circuit Court (“the trial court”) awarded an unreasonable fee to a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of a child in a divorce case, whether the trial court erred in determining that the guardian ad…”

S.D. v. R.D., 628 So. 2d 817 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).

Sd v. Rd, 628 So. 2d 817 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).

— Ala. Code § 15-12-21(d) — 43 cases

Moody v. State, 888 So. 2d 532 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “[12] At these and other pretrial hearings, Moody challenged the constitutionality of § 15-12-21, Ala.Code 1975, the Alabama statute authorizing the payment of attorney fees and other expenses incurred by counsel for an indigent defendant.”

Lyons v. Norris, 829 So. 2d 748 (Ala. 2002). “One of the attorneys sued the comptroller in his individual capacity for negligence and wantonness, while another one of the attorneys sought certification of a putative class consisting of all attorneys appointed pursuant to § 15-12-21, Ala.Code 1975, to represent indigent…”

Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (2014). “1993) (quoting Ala.Code § 15-12-21(d) (1984) ), aff'd 662 So.”

May v. State, 672 So. 2d 1307 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “(A 1984 amendment to § 15-12-21, "Appointment and compensation of counselTrial court" added to subsection (d) the following language: " Retrials of a case shall be considered *1308 a new case.”

Hunt v. State, 940 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “Alabama Code section 15-12-21 (1975) provided, at the time of Mr.”

— Ala. Code § 15-12-21(d)(1) — 2 cases

Hunt v. State, 940 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “Alabama Code section 15-12-21 (1975) provided, at the time of Mr.”

Burgess v. State, 962 So. 2d 272 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).

— Ala. Code § 15-12-21(d)(2) — 2 cases

Smith v. Carter (Ex parte Carter), 261 So. 3d 331 (Ala. 2017).

— Ala. Code § 15-12-21(e) — 11 cases

Moody v. Thomas, 89 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (N.D. Ala. 2015). “The comptroller refused, citing Ala.Code § 15-12-21. Id. at 566. The State petitioned the ACCA for a writ of prohibition, requesting that the court quash all orders of the trial qourt that directed the comptroller to immediately pay the funds requested by Moody’s counsel.”

Ex Parte Smith, 794 So. 2d 1089 (Ala. 2001).

Moody v. State, 95 So. 3d 827 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.