Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Linda Hanlon and Elizabeth Davis some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    King County: Throwing its public defense baby out with the bathwater?

    The city has won national recognition for its independent public defender program. So, why is it starting from scratch?
    Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch and Brock Peters as Tom Robinson in the 1962 film version of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

    Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch and Brock Peters as Tom Robinson in the 1962 film version of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

    Seattle University Law Professor, Bob Boruchowitz

    Seattle University Law Professor, Bob Boruchowitz Photo: King County TV

    King County government has a brand-new Department of Public Defense and a county charter amendment authorizing creation of the new department will probably go to the voters in August. Some people, though, see the new department as a step in the wrong direction.

    The county's old system of public defense — in which a county Office of Public Defense channeled cases to four independent non-profit defender associations — has won accolades. "If not the best in the country, [it's] one of the very best," says Bob Boruchowitz, who directed one of the four non-profits for 28 years and now directs the Defender Initiative at the Seattle University School of Law. Replacing that system, Boruchowitz says, is "tragic."

    The devil will, of course, be in the details. "The [eventual] structure is up in the air," says Dave Chapman, who directed the Office of Public Defense and has become the new department's interim head.

    But to start with, will anything really change? "From my perspective, no," Chapman said at the end of last week. "From Friday to Monday, I don't expect a lot." He says only two of the 355 lawyers working for the defender associations decided not to become county employees. Over time, he hopes to provide better equipment, a better case management system and a stronger voice for the clients. "The details of the implementing ordinance are going to be really important."

    In 1963, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Gideon v. Wainwright, that counsel must be provided for criminal defendants in non-federal courts who couldn't afford lawyers. 

    By and large, the states — and the local governments that actually provide or pay for most of the public defense — seem to have been doing a lousy job. "While the constitutional commitment is generally met in federal courts, it is a different story in state courts, which handle about 95 percent of America’s criminal cases," Lincoln Caplan wrote in The New York Times. "This matters because, by well-informed estimates, at least 80 percent of state criminal defendants cannot afford to pay for lawyers. . . . Only 24 states have statewide public defender systems. Others flout their constitutional obligations by pushing the problem onto cash-strapped counties or local judicial districts. Lack of financing isn’t the only problem, either. Contempt for poor defendants is too often the norm."

    Nobody says that about King County. Boruchowitz and others think the reason the county's public defense system has become a national good example is because all four of the defender associations were independent, able to hire their own staffs, develop their own cultures, work out their own strategies. But they didn't provide county pensions.

    In 2006, defender Kevin Dolan filed what became a class-action suit against King County. The suit argued that defenders were basically working for the county and should therefore be included in the public Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). In 2011, the state supreme court agreed, which led to a settlement late last year under which all employees of the defender associations would become King County employees, starting July 1st. On March 18 — right around the 50th anniversary of Gideonthe county council voted to create the new county department.

    Not everyone was pleased. "After he announced the potential dissolution of the four public-defense agencies to the heads of the four agencies on Wednesday and Thursday, Chapman said he was met with 'mixed reactions,'" Jennifer Sullivan reported in The Seattle Times. "In a joint statement released Thursday, the four firms said . . . '[t]he decision to create a County Public defender agency was made without input or analysis from our offices, bar leaders or community leaders representing our clients.'"

    The county figures that over time, by bringing four separate agencies in-house, it can save money. Boruchowitz is skeptical. "County bureaucracy does not always result in efficiencies or savings," he says. Still, he concedes that "a lot of progress has been made in the past couple of months."

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Mon, Jul 1, 8:39 a.m. Inappropriate

    Here is a conflict-of-interest threat introduced by this new King County public defense system that I don't see being honestly addressed.

    Will King County public defenders be placed in the untenable position of placing their employer's fiscal interest over justice being served?

    Furthermore, will they be pressured into cost containment at the expense of quality representation? Will King County be seeing more "meet, greet, and plead" incentives, rather than trials?

    The state of WA has already made changes in the civil commitment of sexually violent predators in awarding fixed price contracts to defense attorneys in an effort to save money. The risk of this model? It allows the "processing" of a maximum number of defendants for the lowest costs, threatening substantive due process.

    Count me as a skeptic. Is the real reason behind these changes political and prosecution-driven? If the public defense system is weakened, the state's prosecutors gain strength and power and call the shots.

    You can better believe the ACLU-WA chapter will be watching this.


    Posted Mon, Jul 1, 3:47 p.m. Inappropriate

    In a prior life, I worked as a public defender under a fixed-rate county contract split with three others. I also had good friends working in another county as employees of an office of public defender. My experience was that my colleagues under contract performed with far less diligence than those working as employees of an office. There was entirely too much leading and pleading under the fixed-rate contract.

    The office of public defender in the neighboring county however enjoyed a well-earned reputation for fierce independence and vigorous advocacy. This was a result of leadership, management, and organization. An office of public defender can work but only if it is well-funded and employs attorneys and staff sharing the goal of providing excellent and not merely adequate legal services.

    A public defender office can have all of the money it needs but if it lacks dedicated attorneys and staff it will not succeed.

    Posted Tue, Jul 2, 1:54 p.m. Inappropriate

    Those of us who watch Oral Arguments at the Washington State Supreme Court on TVW (interesting even to non-lawyers) will have noticed that criminal convictions that get appealed to the Supreme Court almost always involve publicly funded appellants arguing against pubic prosecutors. It is mildly disconcerting to see rather obscure issues (did the State Patrolman really see that bottle through the side window even though it was the black glass?) being expensively argued with public money. I am distinctly curious about what defendants have to do to prove that they cannot afford a lawyer, is it like the nursing home applicants who can sometimes sign assets over to a relative and then plead indigence? is a defendant with only a little money better off pleading poverty than trying to hire and pay for his own attorney? is improved legal defense to be measured by increased number of acquittals? my own observation is that the publicly funded appellants are as skilled as the prosecutors if not more so.


    Posted Fri, Jul 5, 12:11 p.m. Inappropriate

    Kieth, I can't speak to other counties but in King County defendants are interviewed by the county Office of Public Defense for financial eligibility. Appointment of counsel is based on assets and income. But the reality is that almost no one can afford to pay for private counsel on a serious felony. For a class A felony (rape, homicide, burg1 etc.) a good private attorney will want at least $25,000 up front. A really experience attorney would command $50,000. Even people with good jobs don't have that kind of money sitting around.

    Most defendants don't have squat. The well-to-do are not shoplifting, dealing $20 rocks of cocaine, driving without a license, or stealing cars.

    The people who are really screwed are those with too many assets to qualify for an attorney at public expense but who lack sufficient money to hire an attorney. Very few criminal defense attorneys will take payments as, unlike civil attorneys, once a criminal case is set for trial the attorney needs the permission of the court to withdraw. Judges are very reluctant to delay a case just because the defendant can't keep paying his attorney so it's possible for an attorney to end up trying a case for free.

    Even if the defendant had private counsel for trial, they may end up with a publicly appointed attorney for appeal, having expended all of their money at the trial level.

    As for the "obscure" issues, like a cop seeing what he claimed to see, those are issues of constitutional magnitude.

    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »