Facts
[A.] (the appellant) represented [B.] as a pro bono legal counsel in a divorce proceeding against [C.] . The District Court of Kriens dissolved the marriage of the parties and set the compensation for [A.] at CHF 7,000.--. [A.] filed a complaint against this cost determination and requested compensation of CHF 14,740.35. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne dismissed the complaint. [A.] subsequently filed a subsidiary constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. She maintained her request for compensation of CHF 14,740.35 or, alternatively, for an increase of the compensation to CHF 12,038.54.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the cantons have a considerable margin of discretion in determining the compensation of the pro bono legal representative. The violation of cantonal rules for setting the compensation is generally not a ground for complaint in the ordinary appeal procedure before the Federal Supreme Court. Rather, it can only be argued that the application of cantonal law by the lower instance violates federal law, namely the prohibition of arbitrariness or other constitutional rights. The Federal Supreme Court…