Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by)
The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions.
Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors.
The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers.
Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order.
'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority.
Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel.
'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense.
Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help.
'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said.
Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes.
Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive.
'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?'
'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs.
Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year.
In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases.
That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings.
The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years.
Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120.
As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit.
Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote.
The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions.
In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated.
'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders.
Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work.
And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel.
'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.'
The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering.
But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bolsonaro denies orchestrating Brazil coup in Supreme Court testimony
BRASILIA (Reuters) -Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro denied that he led an attempt to overthrow the government after losing the 2022 election during his trial before the country's Supreme Court on Tuesday, but acknowledged taking part in meetings aimed at reversing the outcome. Bolsonaro said he and senior aides discussed alternatives to accepting the electoral results, including the possibility of deploying military forces and suspending some civil liberties, but he said those proposals were soon dropped. "The feeling was that there was nothing else we could do. We had to swallow the election results," the ex-president said. "I never acted against the Constitution," Bolsonaro added, holding a copy of the country's 1988 charter that re-established democracy after two decades of military rule. In March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case against Bolsonaro and seven other people, including several military officers, who were charged with plotting a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in January 2023. The charges stem from a two-year police investigation into the election-denying movement that culminated in riots by Bolsonaro supporters in the capital in early 2023, a week after Lula took office. Bolsonaro, who was the sixth defendant to testify in the case, spent several minutes of his two hours of testimony defending his administration's achievements and his criticism of the country's electoral system. Dozens of witnesses were previously heard by the court, an indication that the case is moving swiftly and could be concluded by the end of the year, avoiding overlap with campaigning for the 2026 presidential election. Bolsonaro has insisted he will run in that campaign, despite an electoral court decision barring him from seeking public office until 2030. On Monday, Bolsonaro attended the trial to watch testimony from Mauro Cid, his former aide turned whistleblower, and then shook his hand. Cid told the court that the former president reviewed a draft decree that was central to the coup plot and made changes, while keeping a section that ordered the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is now overseeing the case against Bolsonaro and his allies. On Tuesday, the former president said he only briefly saw the draft decree and never edited it. He also apologized for making unfounded corruption allegations about Supreme Court justices. "Forgive me," he told Moraes. A final ruling on Bolsonaro's case is expected by October.


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia say Trump administration's actions left ‘stain' on Constitution
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia are accusing President Donald Trump's administration of pretending for weeks to be powerless to bring him back to the United States from El Salvador, despite orders from a federal judge and the Supreme Court to facilitate his return. Abrego Garcia's attorneys made the allegation in a court filing shortly after the Maryland construction worker was flown to Tennessee on Friday to face federal human smuggling charges . '(T)he Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so,' the attorneys wrote, arguing that the administration has 'engaged in an elaborate, all-of-government effort to defy court orders, deny due process, and disparage Abrego Garcia.' The attorneys said the lawsuit over his mistaken deportation has not concluded in a Maryland federal court. 'The executive branch's wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution,' the attorneys wrote. 'If there is to be any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys made that argument in response to a filing by the Trump administration to halt the lawsuit's proceedings because he's back in the U.S. U.S. attorneys asked for an immediate stay after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the charges in Tennessee . The attorneys wrote that the government complied with the Maryland federal court's order to return Abrego Garcia. The U.S. intends to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In a court filing on Tuesday, the Trump administration pushed back against the accusations of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, describing them as baseless, desperate and disappointing. 'But the proof is in the pudding — Defendants have returned Abrego Garcia to the United States just as they were ordered to do,' the U.S. attorneys wrote. 'None of Plaintiffs' hyperbolic arguments change that or justify further proceedings in this matter.' U.S. officials said Abrego Garcia was deported because of a 2019 accusation from local police in Maryland that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia has denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge had determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that had terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered his return on April 4 . The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. Arguments ensued over the next several weeks about whether the Trump administration was following those orders or not. Meanwhile, Trump said publicly that he could return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. with a call to El Salvador's president. The federal judge in Maryland ordered U.S. attorneys to submit documents and testimony to show what the government had done to follow her orders. The Trump administration claimed that much of that information is protected under the state secrets privilege . The judge has not ruled on that matter. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Argentina's Supreme Court upholds prison sentence for ex-President Cristina Fernández
BUENOS AIRES (AP) — Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the 6-year prison sentence on corruption charges for former President Cristina Fernández. The ruling would also disqualify the leader of South American country's opposition movement, known as Peronism, from holding public office. It left Fernández, one of Argentina's most important political figures of the past two decades, at the brink of an arrest by authorities. Fernández governed for eight years after succeeding her husband in 2007. Under her watch, Argentina became notorious for its unbridled state spending and massive budget deficits. She was found guilty by a federal court in 2022 of having committed a millionaire fraud during her presidency through irregular allocation of state funds to a businessman close to her. Fernández had asked the court for a review of the prison sentence in March, which three judges of the high court rejected. Tuesday's court decision means that Fernández will not be able to compete in September for a seat in the legislature in the country's capital, as she had announced.