## Facts

- Stanley H. Brown, a Nevada attorney, was appointed by a state district court to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case.
- The appointment required extensive work and time well beyond what was typical for a non-capital indigent-defense case.
- Because of the demands of the trial, Brown’s private practice suffered economic losses totaling **$11,624.23**.
- Brown filed petitions in the district court seeking compensation for his court-appointed representation.
- The district court granted the petitions and entered compensation orders awarding fees above the amount allowed by **NRS 7.260**, which limited compensation for appointed counsel in such cases to **$300**.
- The Board of County Commissioners of Washoe County refused to pay the amounts ordered beyond the statutory limit.
- Brown filed an original petition in the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a **writ of mandate** compelling the County to pay the compensation awarded by the district court.

## Issues

1. Whether Nevada’s $300 statutory limit on compensation for appointed counsel in non-capital indigent criminal cases could be applied to bar payment of court-ordered, reasonable compensation in an unusually demanding case that caused substantial economic loss.
2. Whether a writ of mandate should issue to compel the county board to pay the district court’s compensation orders exceeding the statutory cap.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court **granted** the writ of mandate.
- The court concluded that the statutory $300 cap could not be applied in a way that prevented the judiciary from securing adequate representation in an extraordinary appointment by awarding reasonable compensation.
- The court directed the County to comply with the district court’s orders and pay the compensation awarded.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional guarantee of counsel for indigent defendants requires representation that is effective in practice, not merely nominal.
- Courts have authority, as part of their constitutional function in criminal proceedings, to appoint counsel and to ensure counsel can perform the appointment without a confiscatory burden that threatens the administration of justice.
- A legislative fee limit on appointed-counsel compensation may be valid in ordinary cases, but it may not be applied so rigidly that it prevents reasonable compensation in an exceptional case where the appointment demands extensive services.
- When a court issues a lawful compensation order for appointed counsel, a county’s obligation to pay is a ministerial duty; mandate is an available remedy when the county refuses payment.

## Conclusion

Brown held that Washoe County could not rely on NRS 7.260’s $300 limit to refuse payment of the district court’s reasonable compensation orders in an unusually demanding indigent-defense appointment, and the Nevada Supreme Court issued a writ of mandate requiring the County to pay the amounts awarded.


Brown v. Board of County Commissioners of Washoe County, 451 P.2d 708 (1969)