Is it reasonable to expect a public defender to manage 300 or 400 cases in a year? Are they able to truly get to know each defendant, the details of their case, and track down anything that could get a juror to question their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
If not, does that mean the government is failing to live up to the Sixth Amendment's guaranteed right to an attorney for those who can't afford one?
Those questions guided the work of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense over the past two years as members studied the status of indigent defense.
Finding current workloads too high, the association released new caseload standards in March that would significantly reduce the burden.
The current standards, which the Washington Supreme Court adopted in 2012, state that full-time public defenders should not be assigned more than 150 felony cases in a year; 300 to 400 misdemeanor cases per year; or 250 juvenile offender cases per year.
The bar association's new standards pitch an aggressive three-year ramping down of those caseloads starting in July 2025, so that by July 2027 full-time felony public defenders should be assigned no more than 47 felony cases per year (or even fewer for complex cases, such as homicides), and misdemeanor public defenders should be assigned no more than 120 misdemeanor cases.
The proposed standards use a weighting system to assign one to eight "credits" to each type of case based on complexity, and officially seek to limit caseloads to 47 to 120 case credits.
Now, the question is whether the Washington Supreme Court will agree to implement the standards. On Sept. 25 and Nov. 13, the Supreme Court held public hearings to gather feedback on the proposed standards.
While there is wide agreement that public defenders are largely overworked and underpaid, not everyone believes the new standards would make a meaningful difference in the ability to retain public defenders, arguing there's already a shortage of qualified attorneys. Some even argue that the standards could result in decriminalization and lawlessness.
'GIVING UP THEIR LIVES'
In the September public hearing, the Supreme Court heard from multiple public defenders in the state's largest counties, including King, Pierce, and Snohomish, who shared heartbreaking details of how they have had colleagues die by suicide or succumb to substance use disorder due to the high stress of the traumatic job, and how they barely have time to see their families.
Larry Jefferson, director of the Washington Office of Public Defense, passionately asked the court to agree to the new standards. He said even the 2012 standards have been hard to keep up with as a public defender.
"I can remember one Sunday, when I stayed home, and my family looked at me and they said, 'What are you doing here?'" Jefferson told the justices, holding back tears. "My son is gone. I wish I had spent that time with him. ... Public defenders around the state of Washington are making that same sacrifice. ... They're giving up their lives."
While offering sympathy for heavy workloads, speakers from associations that represent prosecutors, law enforcement, cities and counties, argued that the new standards are impossible to financially achieve without state funding.
Teddy Chow, deputy prosecutor for Okanogan County, argued that vigilante justice might increase if cases are dismissed due to counties not having enough public defenders to take on the work. He also said that while the limits might be appropriate for new public defenders, they shouldn't apply to more experienced attorneys.
Sara Watson, chief prosecuting attorney for the city of Kent, said that she might still be a public defender if it weren't for the caseload but that she still never felt overworked to the point where she desired a case limit. She worries the new standards will create de facto decriminalization of some charges.
"Decriminalization will be a natural consequence of making prosecution three times more expensive in this state," Watson told the justices. "This will be especially true for lower-income cities and counties who can't absorb the budget impact due to an inability to tax and increase revenue for this purpose."
The state Supreme Court accepted hundreds of written comments before the November public hearing. In a letter to the justices, Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown and Spokane City Council President Betsy Wilkerson expressed serious concerns.
"The proposed standards will require the City of Spokane to increase public defense staffing and funding from $3.5 million to $10 million," their letter states. "Without state support — this would be financially devastating."
They estimate the city would need to grow from its current 19 full-time defense attorneys to 62 full-time defense attorneys by July 2027 under the new standards. In addition, the standards would require the city office to hire 20 social workers, 17 investigators and 15 paralegals by that time.
THE EXODUS IS REAL
Spokane County did not have someone speak at either public hearing. But before the Washington State Bar Association released the new standards, Spokane County CEO Scott Simmons wrote a letter in March noting the financial consequences.
"From 2015 to 2023, indigent defense costs for Spokane County have risen 20% from $9.6 [million] to $11.5 [million] annually. During the same period, funding from the State of Washington to Spokane County has remained relatively flat ranging from [$500,000] to [$550,000] annually," Simmons wrote. "At the present time, Spokane County does not have an identified source of funds to absorb the resulting cost increases."
Still, Colin Charbonneau, director of the Spokane County Public Defender office, wrote to the Washington Supreme Court on Oct. 31 to strongly support the new standards.
"My office has experienced a well-documented exodus of experienced public defenders. In the last eight months, six of the seven attorneys that have resigned were certified to handle the most complex criminal litigation," Charbonneau wrote. "Without changes, this revolving door of public defense attorneys will continue as irreplaceable amounts of institutional knowledge exit the profession."
The state Supreme Court plans to discuss the standards during a hearing on Dec. 4 , and potentially again in January. Some groups are already talking with state lawmakers to pitch significant state investment in public defense during the upcoming legislative session. ♦
