Roulan v. County of Onondaga, 21 N.Y.3d 903 (2013)

To have standing to challenge a government action, a plaintiff must demonstrate injury in fact that is distinct from the general public and falls within the zone of interests protected by the relevant statute.

Summary

An attorney, Roulan, sued Onondaga County and the Assigned Counsel Program (ACP), challenging the ACP’s rules for assigning counsel to indigent defendants. Roulan argued that the ACP’s rules were *ultra vires* and negatively impacted his compensation. The New York Court of Appeals held that Roulan lacked standing to challenge certain ACP provisions regarding the assignment of counsel to unemancipated minors and previously retained clients because he failed to demonstrate a concrete injury distinct from the general public. The Court also found the ACP Plan did not usurp judicial authority in determining assigned counsel’s compensation.

Facts

Onondaga County contracted with the Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program, Inc. (ACP) to administer a plan for providing counsel to indigent defendants. The ACP Plan established panels of attorneys who would be appointed by courts to represent indigent individuals. Attorney Timothy Roulan, a participant in the ACP Plan, alleged that he was underpaid in several assigned cases. He challenged the validity of the ACP Plan’s rules and regulations, arguing they were *ultra vires* and illegal.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Onondaga County and the ACP, dismissing Roulan’s complaint. Roulan appealed only the dismissal of his claim for declaratory relief. The Appellate Division upheld the ACP Plan’s validity with one exception. Roulan then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals based on a two-Justice dissent in the Appellate Division.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Roulan had standing to challenge provisions of the ACP Plan concerning the assignment of counsel to unemancipated minors in adult criminal court.
2. Whether Roulan had standing to challenge provisions of the ACP Plan concerning the assignment of attorneys who were retained by a client who later becomes indigent.
3. Whether the ACP Plan usurps the authority of trial judges to determine assigned counsel’s compensation.

Holding

1. No, because Roulan did not demonstrate an injury in fact distinct from the general public arising from the ACP Plan’s provisions regarding unemancipated minors.
2. No, because Roulan did not demonstrate an injury in fact distinct from the general public arising from the ACP Plan’s provisions regarding previously retained clients.
3. No, because the ACP Plan only provides for a preliminary review and recommendation regarding compensation, which trial judges are free to accept or reject.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals addressed the issue of standing, citing Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 773-774 (1991), stating that standing requires an “injury in fact which is distinct from the general public and falls within the zone of interests protected by the statute at issue.” The Court found that Roulan’s personal disagreement with the ACP Plan and speculative financial loss were insufficient to confer standing. Roulan failed to provide specific instances where he was negatively affected by the challenged provisions. Regarding the compensation issue, the Court reasoned that the ACP Plan did not infringe upon the courts’ authority to determine compensation because it merely provided a preliminary review and recommendation. The Court emphasized that individual trial judges retained the ultimate authority to approve or reject compensation vouchers. The court stated that the ACP Plan