1. The court shall not authorize the payment of state funds for the costs incurred in the
legal representation of an indigent person represented by a privately retained attorney unless
the requirements of this section are satisfied.
2. An application for the payment of state funds for the costs incurred in the legal
representation of an indigent person that is submitted by the privately retained attorney
shall be filed with the court in the county in which the case was filed and include all of the
following:
a. A copy of the attorney’s fee agreement for the representation, including hourly rate,
amount of retainer or other moneys received, and number of hours of work completed by the
attorney to date.
b. A showing that the costs are reasonable and necessary for the representation of the
indigent person in a case for which counsel could have been appointed under section 815.10.
c. An itemized accounting of all compensation paid to the attorney including the amount
of any retainer.
d. The amount of compensation earned by the attorney.
e. Information on any expected additional costs to be paid or owed by the indigent person
to the attorney for the representation.
f. A signed financial affidavit completed by the indigent person.
3. The privately retained attorney shall submit a copy of the application and all attached
documents to the state public defender.
4. The court shall not grant the application and authorize all or a portion of the payment
to be made from state funds unless the court determines, after reviewing the application and
supporting documents, that all of the following apply:
a. The represented person is indigent and unable to pay for the costs sought to be paid.
b. The costs are reasonable and necessary for the representation of the indigent person
in a case for which counsel could have been appointed under section 815.10.
c. The moneys paid or to be paid to the privately retained attorney by or on behalf of the
indigent person are insufficient to pay all or a portion of the costs sought to be paid from state
funds.
(1) In determining whether the moneys paid or to be paid to the attorney are insufficient
for purposes of this paragraph “c”, the court shall add the hours previously worked to the
hours expected to be worked to finish the case and multiply that sum by the hourly rate of
compensation specified under section 815.7.
(2) If the product calculated in subparagraph (1) is greater than the moneys paid or to be\n\nTue Dec 09 21:53:39 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 815 (35, 1)
§815.1, COSTS — COMPENSATION AND FEES — INDIGENT DEFENSE 2\n\npaid to the attorney by or on behalf of the indigent person, the moneys shall be considered
insufficient to pay all or a portion of the costs sought to be paid from state funds.
(3) If the private attorney is retained on a flat fee agreement, and a precise record of hours
worked is not available, the attorney shall provide the court a reasonable estimate of the time
expended to allow the court to make the calculation pursuant to this paragraph “c”.
5. Either the privately retained attorney for the indigent person or a representative from
the office of the state public defender may participate in a hearing on the application by
telephone.
6. If the court finds the payment of the costs incurred or to be incurred by a privately
retained attorney are reasonable and necessary, the order of the court shall specify the
maximum amount of costs which the attorney may incur without further court order, and
that the actual amount of such costs to be allowed are subject to review by the state public
defender for reasonableness.
7. Following entry of an order allowing costs to be incurred by a privately retained
attorney representing an indigent person, the attorney or a claimant referred to in subsection
9 seeking payment or reimbursement for costs shall submit a claim for payment in
accordance with the rules of the state public defender.
8. If the privately retained attorney or claimant referred to in subsection 9 seeking
payment or reimbursement for costs pursuant to this section fails to comply with the
requirements of this section, the state public defender may deny all or a part of the costs
requested.
9. This section applies to payments to witnesses under section 815.4, evaluators,
investigators, and certified shorthand reporters, and for other costs incurred by a privately
retained attorney in the legal representation.
10. This section shall not be construed to restrict the payment of costs on behalf of indigent
persons represented on a pro bono basis.
2019 Acts, ch 51, §1
\n
Notes of Decisions
Pfister v. Iowa Dist. Court for Polk Cnty., 688 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 2004).
· cites it 6× “An award of attorney fees to a court-appointed attorney incurred in these cases shall be paid out of the state treasury from the general fund if the prosecution fails or if the person liable to pay the attorney fees cannot pay them.”
State v. Iowa Dist. Court of Sioux Cnty., 286 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 1979).
· cites it 4× “The expense of fees for court-appointed attorneys is ordinarily borne by the county in which the crime alleged is committed, except in special cases designated in section 815.1, but not applicable here, where such costs are payable by the state.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
· cites it 112× “51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
· cites it 112× “51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
· cites it 110× “51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
State v. Iowa Dist. Court for Lyon Cnty., 348 N.W.2d 221 (Iowa 1984).
· cites it 8× “2d 22, 24 (Iowa 1979): The expense of fees for court-appointed attorneys is ordinarily borne by the county in which the crime alleged is committed, except in special cases designated in section 815.1, but not applicable here, where such costs are payable by the state.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(1) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(2)(a) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(4) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(4)(a) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(4)(c) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(4)(c)(1) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(4)(c)(2) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
— Iowa Code § 815.1(7) — 3 cases
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
Rodrigo Adolpho Amaya v. State Pub. Def. (Iowa 2022).
“51, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 815.1 (2020)). This appeal requires us to determine whether those changes unconstitutionally pit an indigent defendant’s right to an attorney of his choosing against his right to services needed to allow him to put on an adequate defense.”
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.