Court says prisons can refuse to pay legal fees

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Corrections

Court says prisons can refuse to pay legal fees

By Mark Scolforo
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Penn. — A Pennsylvania appeals court ruled yesterday that the state government can refuse to provide defense lawyers and decline to pay the cost of financial judgments against prison guards who engage in criminal or malicious conduct.


The 4-3 ruling overturned an arbitration panel's 2006 award to the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association and restored the discretion of the state Corrections and Public Welfare departments over when to represent workers accused of wrongdoing.

The Commonwealth Court majority opinion by Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt said the arbitrators put the state in a position where it had to defend employees for anything they did at the workplace, including murder.

Donald McNany, president of the guards' union, vowed to appeal.

"We've had individuals in the past that have faced lawsuits that the state has not backed them up on, that have spent thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars."

The union, which represents about 9,400 workers, said that more than 1,500 lawsuits were filed against its members in 2002 alone.

The Corrections Department said only in rare cases has it not paid to represent workers in lawsuits or indemnify them against civil judgments.

Corrections spokeswoman Sue McNaughton said the ruling properly gave discretion to state government instead of an arbitration panel.

"The DOC does not tolerate criminal activity committed by its employees, and the commonwealth should not be mandated, by terms of collective bargaining agreements, to defend or reimburse such individuals for attorneys' fees when their conduct is criminal and/or malicious," she said.

Roy Pinto, a union vice president, said the guards' need for legal defense doesn't mean it condones illegal behavior by members. He called Ms. McNaughton's remarks "foolish."

"What the [union] is trying to do is to try and protect the corrections officers and their families from the frivolous lawsuits the inmates file against them."

[Bowles]

It's the same in NC, if you're wrong the DOC will drop you like a hot potato.

[all4114all]

And I am finding a problem trying to see what is wrong with that.

If I am doing my job, defend me to the end.

If not, I should have to defend myself. If it turns out it was false, then the state can pay.

[shakedownshorti]

Originally Posted by Bowles

It's the same in NC, if you're wrong the DOC will drop you like a hot potato.

"What the [union] is trying to do is to try and protect the corrections officers and their families from the frivolous lawsuits the inmates file against them."


As stated above, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are "Wrong" or have done something wrong.....

[Hack]

Originally Posted by shakedownshorti

"What the [union] is trying to do is to try and protect the corrections officers and their families from the frivolous lawsuits the inmates file against them."


As stated above, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are "Wrong" or have done something wrong.....

I understand the BOP will not defend us in a Bivens case? Not that I have anything to worry about at present.