From DKazar1@Tampabay.rr.com Sun Jun 27 12:36:48 2004 Received: from mxe4.u.washington.edu (mxe4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.15]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.11+UW04.02/8.12.11+UW04.05) with ESMTP id i5RJamhj008318 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:36:48 -0700 Received: from ms-smtp-04.tampabay.rr.com (ms-smtp-04-smtplb.tampabay.rr.com [65.32.5.134]) by mxe4.u.washington.edu (8.12.11+UW04.02/8.12.11+UW04.03) with ESMTP id i5RJai5A010658 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:36:45 -0700 Received: from david (75-39.73-24.tampabay.rr.com [24.73.39.75]) by ms-smtp-04.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i5RJag7t023760 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001801c45c7e$12501790$6401a8c0@david> From: "David Kazar" To: References: <000201c41fa8$b7894550$6401a8c0@lrg> Subject: Re: [FG] Pro-bono Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:36:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C45C5C.8AF22C50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='SUPERLONG_LINE 0.003, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __REFERENCES 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __EVITE_CTYPE 0, __NEXTPART_ALL 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __NEXTPART_NORMAL 0, __HAS_X_PRIORITY 0, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI 0, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __ANY_OUTLOOK_MUA 0, __HAS_OUTLOOK_IN_MAILER 0, __HAS_MIMEOLE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __TAG_EXISTS_BODY 0, __TAG_EXISTS_META 0, __MIME_HTML 0, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML 0, __TAG_EXISTS_HEAD 0, __OUTLOOK_MUA 0, REFERENCES 0.000' This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C45C5C.8AF22C50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that this was briefly addressed early in this list but looking = over what I saved I am not sure that there was much debate or concensus. The present guidelines say that fee for service forensic psychologists = should provide pro-bono or reduced fee for "public interest or welfare = of clients" with insuffecient funds. I am opposed to this as it is written. My notes indicate that there was a brief debate around the conflict that = appears to arise when duty to be impartial and serve the truth is = threatened by having determined that there is some greater good that may = be served. I think that this is a just and good argument but I think = there may be other arguments as well. One objection is that which I would voice about giving money to the = panhandler instead of a charity. I am in a poor position to determine if = a client has limited resources. An anecdote may serve. A defendant was = seen by the PD the PD suggested that I evaluate them. The defendant had = multiple meical problems and psyhological problems. Before I could see = them the defendant's family retained priovate counsel. That attorney = consulted me asking for my fee. The fee qouted was an hourly rate that = is the same for the PD but the PD's bill is capped. After some = negotiating I agreed to work at the same cap as if the client were = referred by the PD. I had been persuaded by the financial difficulties = of the client as well as what appeared to be an interesting sentencing = issue. The case draged on and was much more difficulty than working with = the PD. The case was more complex, the issues more difficult and the = logistics of working with a busy trial attorney made phone tag an ordeal = I hadn't counted on. At the trial's conclusion there is reason to = believe that the defendant's legal declared income, while negligible, is = a very small portion of available family income. While this is not the = best example, I think it points out the danger in accepting reduced fees = based upon a suspicion that there is an income issue. The attorney did = not accept a reduced fee. Another objection that I have is that of equity. The guideline = identifies fee for service providers as though it was like the old days = in the 1980 and 1990s. With fee for service providers' mean incomes at = around $56,000 and govt. or faculty incomes slightly higher (when = adjusted for service hours) I don't see why those working hardest for = the lowest wages should accept the additional burden of giving away = reimburseable services. Finally I would ask. Shouldn't financial contributions, and service time = donated to organizations (APA, state organizations, ABPP, etc.) be = considered as great a value to society as donating time or reducing = rates for some legal cases. I propose that the recomendation be dropped or modified to say that = forensic providers should offer some of their time to promote public = good and foster the interests of the profession. Such service may = include testifying before the legislature or licensing board, serving as = officers or representatives in the various professional interest = groups. David B. Kazar, Ph.D., ABPP-Clinical Dr. Tan and Associates Suite #305 1201 Fifth Avenue North Saint Anthony's Professional Building Saint Petersburg, Florida 33705-1425 Tel (727) 327-3737 Fax (727) 825-1377 ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C45C5C.8AF22C50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think that this was briefly addressed early in = this list=20 but looking over what I saved I am not sure that there was much debate = or=20 concensus.
 
The present guidelines  say  that fee = for=20 service forensic psychologists should provide pro-bono or reduced fee = for=20 "public interest or welfare of clients" with  insuffecient=20 funds.
 
I am opposed to this as it is = written.
 
My notes indicate that there was a brief debate = around the=20 conflict that appears to arise when duty to be impartial and serve = the=20 truth is threatened by having determined that there is some greater good = that=20 may be served. I think that this is a just and good argument but I think = there=20 may be other arguments as well.
 
One objection is that which I would voice about = giving=20 money to the panhandler instead of a charity. I am in a poor position to = determine if a client has limited resources. An anecdote may serve. A = defendant=20 was seen by the PD the PD suggested that I evaluate them. The = defendant had=20 multiple meical problems and psyhological problems. Before I could see = them the=20 defendant's family retained priovate counsel.  That attorney = consulted me=20 asking for my fee. The fee qouted was an hourly rate that is the same = for the PD=20 but the PD's  bill is capped. After some negotiating I agreed to = work at=20 the same cap as if the client were referred by the PD. I had been = persuaded=20 by the financial difficulties of the client as well as what appeared to = be an=20 interesting sentencing issue. The case draged on and was much more = difficulty=20 than working with the PD. The case was more complex, the issues more = difficult=20 and the logistics of working with a busy trial attorney made phone tag = an ordeal=20 I hadn't counted on.  At the trial's conclusion there is reason to = believe=20 that the defendant's legal declared income, while negligible, is a very = small=20 portion of available family income. While this is not the best = example, I=20 think it points out the danger in accepting reduced fees based upon a = suspicion=20 that there is an income issue.  The attorney did not accept a = reduced=20 fee.
 
Another objection that I have is that of equity. = The=20 guideline identifies fee for service providers as though it was like the = old=20 days in the 1980 and 1990s. With fee for service providers' mean incomes = at=20 around $56,000 and govt. or faculty incomes slightly  higher (when = adjusted=20 for service hours) I don't see why those working hardest for the lowest = wages=20 should accept the additional burden of giving away reimburseable=20 services.
 
Finally I would ask. Shouldn't financial = contributions,=20 and service time donated to organizations (APA, state organizations, = ABPP, etc.)=20 be considered as great a value to society as donating time or reducing = rates for=20 some legal cases.
 
I propose that the recomendation be dropped or = modified to=20 say that forensic providers should offer some of their time to promote = public=20 good and foster the interests of the profession. Such service may = include=20 testifying before the legislature or licensing board, serving as = officers=20 or  representatives in the various professional  interest=20 groups.
 
David B. Kazar, Ph.D., ABPP-Clinical
Dr. Tan and = Associates
Suite=20 #305
1201 Fifth Avenue North
Saint Anthony's Professional=20 Building
Saint Petersburg, Florida 33705-1425
Tel (727) 327-3737 = Fax (727)=20 825-1377
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C45C5C.8AF22C50-- .