O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-1-12 (2019)

Restrictions on contingency fee compensation of attorney appointed to represent state in forfeiture action

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Statute text

(a) In any forfeiture action brought pursuant to this title, an attorney appointed by the Attorney General or district attorney as a special assistant attorney general, special assistant district attorney, or other attorney appointed to represent this state in such forfeiture action shall not be compensated on a contingent basis by a percentage of assets which arise or are realized from such forfeiture action. Such attorneys shall also not be compensated on a contingent basis by an hourly, fixed fee, or other arrangement which is contingent on a successful prosecution of such forfeiture action.

(b) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise restricting the Attorney General or a district attorney from appointing special assistants or other attorneys to assist in the prosecution of any action brought pursuant to this title.

History

(Code 1981, § 16-1-12, enacted by Ga. L. 2012, p. 1035, § 2/SB 181.)

Annotations

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2012, p. 1035, § 3/SB 181, approved by the Governor May 2, 2012, provided that the effective date of this Code section is July 1, 2011. See Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-76 for construction of effective date provisions that precede the date of approval by the Governor.

——————————

CHAPTER 2
CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Article 1

Culpability.

16-2-1. "Crime" defined.

16-2-2. Effect of misfortune or accident on guilt.

16-2-3. Presumption of sound mind and discretion.

16-2-4. Presumption that acts of sound person willful.

16-2-5. Presumption that sound person intends natural and probable consequences of acts.

16-2-6. Intention a question of fact.

Article 2

Parties to Crimes.

16-2-20. When a person is a party to a crime.

16-2-21. Prosecution of parties who did not directly commit the crime.

16-2-22. Criminal responsibility of corporations.

——————————

ARTICLE 1
CULPABILITY

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2012–2012 · leading case: Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State, 730 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State, 730 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “The bill adds a new Code section, OCGA § 16-1-12, which prohibits a SADA appointed in a forfeiture action from being compensated on a contingency basis by a percentage of the assets that arise or are realized from the forfeiture action.”

Greater Georgia Amusements, LLC v. State, 728 S.E.2d 744 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “We also note forthcoming OCGA § 16-1-12, passed by the General Assembly as part of Senate Bill 181, signed into law by the Governor on May 2, 2012, and applying to “contracts entered on or after July 1, 2011”: (a) In any forfeiture action brought pursuant to this title, an…”

Greater Georgia Amusements, LLC v. State of Ga (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Such an arrangement is all the more repugnant in the context of Georgia RICO forfeiture actions, which can be brought only by the State 2 We also note forthcoming OCGA § 16-1-12, passed by the Georgia Assembly as part of Senate Bill 181, signed into law by the Governor on May 2,…”

Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “4 As a result, this Court held that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the SADA appointed under such an 4 We also note that the General Assembly recently passed Senate Bill 181, which was signed into law by the Governor on May 2, 2012.”

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.