## Facts

- Robert F. Garrow, Sr., an indigent defendant, was indicted in Hamilton County, New York, on multiple charges including murder arising from highly publicized crimes and a large manhunt.
- Frank H. Armani and Francis R. Belge were appointed as assigned counsel under New York County Law article 18-B after the court determined Garrow and his family lacked resources.
- During representation, Garrow disclosed that he had killed additional victims and identified locations of two bodies; counsel verified the locations and documented them but did not disclose this information to authorities, citing confidentiality duties.
- Public reaction to counsel’s non-disclosure was severe once it became known, leading to investigations and threats of criminal and professional sanctions and alleged economic harm to counsel’s practices.
- After the principal criminal proceedings, counsel applied to the Hamilton County Court for compensation exceeding statutory limits, asserting the representation required extraordinary time, effort, and responsibility in light of the case’s complexity and notoriety.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New York County Law article 18-B, a trial court may award assigned counsel compensation exceeding statutory maximums in an extraordinary case.
2. If so, whether the unusual burdens associated with intense public hostility and collateral professional consequences may be considered in determining a reasonable award.
3. What limits apply to an above-cap award—particularly whether compensation may extend beyond payment for legal services to cover reputational or economic harm.

## Decision

- The court held it had authority under article 18-B to award reasonable compensation above nominal statutory limits in appropriate, exceptional circumstances.
- The court found counsel’s services were extraordinary in scope and difficulty due to multiple indictments, complex defense preparation (including mental responsibility issues), and extreme public and media scrutiny.
- The court granted the application in part, awarding fees exceeding the ordinary statutory caps.
- The court declined to treat the fee proceeding as a general remedy for all collateral harms, and limited the award to reasonable compensation connected to the representation.

## Legal Principles

- Article 18-B’s compensation scheme is intended to secure competent representation for indigent defendants; in exceptional cases, rigid application of fee caps may be inconsistent with that purpose.
- A court may depart from statutory maxima when necessary to provide fair and reasonable compensation for extraordinary services actually rendered by assigned counsel.
- Public hostility and unusual professional burdens arising from counsel’s performance of ethical duties may be relevant to assessing whether a case is exceptional and unusually demanding.
- Above-cap compensation must remain tethered to reasonableness factors tied to legal services (time, labor, difficulty, and responsibility), rather than functioning as indemnification for reputational injury or broader economic loss.

## Conclusion

The court partially awarded compensation beyond article 18-B’s statutory limits, concluding that the extraordinary complexity and notoriety of the assigned representation justified an above-cap fee while limiting recovery to reasonable payment for legal services rather than collateral reputational or economic damages.


In re Armani, 371 N.Y.S.2d 563 (Hamilton Cnty. Ct. 1975)