I am disturbed by the majority’s avoidance of the issues squarely presented by this case—(1) whether attorneys appointed to represent incarcerated, indigent civil defendants are entitled to compensation; (2) whether the courts possess the power to order such payment; and (3) what the source of such compensation is to be.
This court should confront these complicated issues now. Placing these vexing problems on the “judicial backburner” will only exacerbate the situation and further confuse the trial courts and the bar. I suspect these problems will not disappear nor will they become any more tractable with the *208passage of time. In short, the majority would do well to heed the advice Lord Chesterfield gave to his son: “Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.”
I am also of the view that lawyers should not be forced to represent anyone without adequate compensation. The financial burden engendered by ensuring the constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel should not be placed on the shoulders of lawyers. That burden squarely rests with the state. If an attorney takes on the representation of an indigent, he or she should be properly compensated.
As with any other working person, lawyers should be properly compensated for their time and effort. Justice King aptly expressed these sentiments in his concurring opinion in the Court of Appeal. “No one would dare suggest courts have the authority to order a doctor, dentist or any other professional to provide free services, while at the same time telling them they must personally pay their own overhead charges for that time. No crystal ball is necessary to foresee the public outrage which would erupt if we ordered grocery store owners to give indigents two months of free groceries or automobile dealers to give them two months of free cars. Lawyers in our society are entitled to no greater privileges than the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker; but they certainly are entitled to no less.”
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.