Attorney Fees at Temporary Orders: Reality or Illusion?
| Publication year | 1995 |
| Pages | 2185 |
| Citation | Vol. 24 No. 9 Pg. 2185 |
1995, September, Pg. 2185. Attorney Fees at Temporary Orders: Reality or Illusion?
Recent statistics show that the number of pro se litigants is increasing. Many economically disadvantaged spouses are simply unable to afford counsel. This article discusses the statutes and pertinent case law relating to attorney fees at temporary orders and the difficulties experienced by many litigants in obtaining satisfactory orders.
The gender bias study on Colorado Courts(fn1) reported that 72 percent of the responding attorneys said that judges never or almost never award sufficient temporary attorney fees to allow the economically dependent spouse to pursue litigation effectively. Approximately 23 percent of attorneys stated that they do not accept clients who must depend on temporary orders to pay their attorney fees. Only 25 percent of attorneys regularly accept clients who depend on temporary orders to pay their attorney fees.(fn2)
Both male and female attorneys commented on the reluctance of judges to award attorney fees to the economically disadvantaged spouse and the resulting negative impact on the availability of adequate representation.(fn3)
In this author's opinion, obtaining a temporary order for attorney fees has become even more important in light of the new rules of disclosure and the additional responsibilities that have been placed on domestic relations attorneys by changes to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure ("C.R.C.P.").(fn4) The new rules, which came into effect July 1, 1995, require more work on the part of the attorney at an early stage of the proceedings.
Pattern interrogatories and pattern requests for production of documents are being delivered as a matter of course by many attorneys, which may make other attorneys feel that they need to respond with similar requests for information. Because this can involve substantially increased costs and preparation, some attorneys may be even more hesitant to act without an adequate retainer at the commencement of the proceedings. For the client who depends on temporary orders to pay his or her attorney fees, this could exacerbate the problem of finding an attorney who will take the case.
The reluctance to assist the economically disadvantaged spouse is not due to inadequate support in the law. The statutes (CRS §§ 14-10-108 and 119) provide that the court may order a party to pay a reasonable amount for costs and attorney fees of maintaining or defending any proceeding under the Article. The reported cases also provide ample support for attorney fee awards.
In Bieler v. Bieler,(fn5) the Colorado Supreme Court held that the purpose of temporary alimony and attorney fees is to place the spouses on an equal footing in litigation. In a Colorado Court of Appeals case, McMillon v. McMillon,(fn6) the wife was out of state due to reasons that were not her...
To continue reading
Request your trial