Smith v. Asterlin CA3

BACKGROUND

Because this case comes to us on a demurrer, we accept as true the properly pleaded material facts alleged in the challenged pleading. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6.) We draw the following facts from the allegations in Smith’s first amended complaint. During the relevant time period, the Sacramento County Conflict Criminal Defender Program (CCD) provided legal services to individuals that the Sacramento County Public Defender could not represent. Asterlin, an independent contractor, provided legal services to criminal defendants under the program. Under Asterlin’s

2 agreement with the CCD, expenses for investigation, experts, and other ancillary services had to be preauthorized by the CCD. Smith was a defendant entitled to court-appointed counsel in the underlying criminal action, and CCD assigned Asterlin to represent Smith. The action was a complex matter consisting of over 14,000 pages of discovery, hundreds of recorded telephone calls, and novel legal issues. Smith asked Asterlin to obtain a real estate expert for his defense. Asterlin agreed such an expert would help in Smith’s defense but said CCD would not pay an expert more than $100 to…