A Boulder County judge exceeded her authority by ordering the district attorney’s office to pay a defense lawyer’s costs for deleting an improperly shared image, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The DA’s office sought the justices’ intervention after District Court Judge Dea M. Lindsey allowed defense counsel to recover nearly $3,000 from the prosecution for certain expenses involved with destroying the wrongly disclosed evidence. Although Lindsey acknowledged there was no precise guidance, she believed reimbursement was warranted because, “but for the dissemination by the prosecution, counsel for the defense would not have incurred these costs.”

In an unsigned Aug. 18 order, the Supreme Court noted the longstanding “American rule” requires parties to pay their own legal costs, unless another rule or agreement says otherwise.

“We’re not aware of any Colorado case permitting a trial court to rely on its inherent authority to create a new exception to the American rule,” the justices wrote.

When Boulder County prosecutors charged a defendant with sexual assault on a child, the Longmont Police Department uploaded evidence to a digital folder. The police shared the folder with the district attorney’s office, which then gave access to the defense lawyer.

At one point, the prosecutor realized one photo depicting child sex abuse material was not meant to be disclosed. The prosecutor obtained a court order for the defense to destroy the explicit image.

However, according to the DA’s petition to the Supreme Court, the defense attorney — working through the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, which steps in when the public defender’s office has a conflict — said she had to spend $2,470 to have a professional wipe her hard drive. She also spent $261 to replace two hard drives.

The attorney allegedly took those actions after receiving ethical and forensics advice. She further represented that the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel has “funding caps” for reimbursing attorneys. Therefore, she asked for the district attorney’s office to compensate her. Lindsey granted the motion.

The DA’s office sought the Supreme Court’s intervention, casting doubt on the defense attorney’s actions. But the “primary question here is whether a district court has legal authority to order a district attorney’s office to reimburse defense counsel for litigation costs when there is no rule or statute expressly authorizing such an order,” wrote Senior Deputy District Attorney Ryan Day. “This is, fundamentally, where Judge Lindsey erred.”

In responding to the prosecution’s petition, defense attorney James West contended the government’s inadvertent disclosure actually cost “tens of thousands of dollars in time and resources,” for which the trial lawyer only sought a fraction of the costs. West argued the lawyer had to take drastic action because the prosecution did not provide specific guidance about what, precisely, needed to be deleted.

“Trial counsel sought reimbursement only for necessary out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the State’s error, which conferred no personal benefit,” wrote West. Because the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel does not have the same resources as the public defender’s office, contracted lawyers cannot “accept the risk of unexpected expenses caused by the reckless behavior of the district attorneys and the system would risk immediate danger if they did.”

The Supreme Court did not address those points. Instead, it focused on one issue: Nothing specifically allowed Lindsey to order reimbursement in this scenario.

“To the extent that the district court relied on its inherent authority, it erred,” the justices wrote. “Although trial courts have inherent authority to fulfill their responsibilities, including as reasonably necessary to efficiently conduct their judicial functions, give effect to their lawful actions, and protect their independence, integrity, and dignity, such authority is not unlimited.”

The case is People v. McConiughey.