For the Defense - Vol. 9, Issue 4 - 13

This article introduces the report's ten reforms, which track the
American Bar Association's " Ten Principles of a Public Defense
Delivery System. " 3
The article also discusses our motivations,
supporting data, and advocacy approach. Finally, it highlights
encouraging progress at the local level, along with promising
statewide reform efforts.
Motivation
Eighteen years ago, I started as an Assistant Public Defender in
Allegheny County. Our office did not provide clients with vertical
representation. Newer lawyers like me handled preliminary
hearings. If a case proceeded to trial, a different lawyer would pick
up the case later. I, and the other lawyers who handled 'prelims',
routinely defended 50 or more clients a week. With caseloads that
high, we had no time to speak with clients before their court dates.
We did our best. But many days-particularly after a long day in
Pittsburgh Municipal Court-I left the courthouse frustrated. We
'system professionals' functioned much like an assembly line. My
role was seemingly to help the court and prosecutor churn through
the unrelenting stream of cases. I had no choice but to triage. I
focused my attention on the 'more serious' cases, while handling
the rest with whatever energy and time I had left.
My career took a detour when my family moved to Boston. I
transitioned to working in Legal Aid, serving indigent clients with
housing issues. My caseload was immediately reduced by 90%. Now
I had time to meet with clients in my office before we went to court.
As a result, I was able to understand not just their legal problems,
but also the factors in my clients' lives that brought them into the
legal system such as poverty and untreated mental health issues.
This knowledge helped me to earn my clients' trust. It also enabled
better collaboration with my clients, leading to improved legal and
non-legal outcomes.
My experiences outside of public defense shaped my perspective
about the challenges I faced as a public defender. While I worked
hard to provide the best representation I could, my clients who
faced potentially life-altering charges deserved better. I often did
not have time to conduct an adequate investigation into clients'
cases. I knew little about their lives. Sometimes, I barely knew their
names. This prevented me from delivering consistent, high-quality
representation.
Things are better now in Allegheny County than when I started
in 2006. But we still have far to go. Public defenders and courtappointed
lawyers alike continue to be handicapped by crushing
caseloads and inadequate resources. Indigent clients and their
families are harmed as a result.
Defense lawyers have a responsibility to up-end this status quo.
That means going beyond zealous advocacy in the courtroom
(though that is, of course, a necessary part). We must also make our
case in the media and to the general public. Ultimately, we must
persuade policymakers that adequate defense funding is necessary.
Leveraging the Data
One focus of ALI's Public Defense Reforms report was to marshal
data to educate policymakers about the importance of investing in
public defense.4
The year 2024 was an opportune time to publish
because two crucial reports released the previous year strengthened
our hand.
And here's a personal story to illustrate the study's power from
the perspective of court-appointed lawyers. In the past, when I
explained to policymakers that Allegheny County's $750 'fee cap'
in felony drug cases was too low, I'd make this point: I can easily
spend 50 hours defending a felony drug case involving significant
electronic discovery and pretrial motions practice. Given the $750
fee cap, that translates to an effective rate of $15/hour. When you
take into account private practice overhead costs such as rent, staff,
and Westlaw, I lose money on the case. As a result of the too-low fee
caps, moreover, most competent attorneys refuse to accept court
appointments. Those that do accept them are incentivized to do
the bare minimum for their clients. The frustrating response I heard
from some policymakers (who do not practice criminal defense)
was, 'nah, drug cases don't take that much attorney time.' Before, I
had no objective source to back me up. Now I do: according to the
National Workload Study, the average number of hours necessary to
defend a felony drug case is 57 hours.7
A second important study was the ABA's updated " Ten Principles
of a Public Defense Delivery System. " 8
This report describes " the
fundamental criteria for jurisdictions to use when assessing
their public defense systems. " 9
As a Pennsylvania state legislative
committee recognized, the '10 Principles' report is widely considered
to be an essential roadmap for policymakers seeking to build an
effective indigent defense system.10
In our report, we assess whether Allegheny County's public
defender and appointed-counsel systems comply with the 10
Principles. We visually display the results in a chart, which shows
that Allegheny County's systems fail to comply with most of the ABA
standards.11
Messaging
Our defense community must improve its public messaging.
Polling shows that our default argument-such as, 'The Constitution
demands that the accused has a right to an effective lawyer!'-do
not always resonate with the public. Two issues, however, that
are important to the public (and the politicians they elect) are
protecting public safety and saving taxpayer money. The truth is,
investing in public defense advances both goals. So we should tailor
our message accordingly.
To demonstrate this, our report discusses the positive example of
the Bronx Defenders. The Bronx Defenders pioneered the 'holistic
defense' model. A multi-year study compared case outcomes for
indigent clients represented by the Bronx Defenders vs. clients
Vol. 9, Issue 4 l For The Defense 13
One was the " National Public Defense Workload Study. " The
study was conducted by the RAND Corporation, in collaboration
with the American Bar Association (ABA) and National Center
for State Courts. It established " new national public defense
workload standards, which are intended to assist governmental
bodies " in " evaluating defender workloads and ensuring adequate
representation. " The standards reflect the reality of " modern
criminal defense practice, including the tremendous expansion of
digital discovery .... " Critically, the standards " provide a basis for
any public defense system " to " reliably assess overall caseloads and
staffing .... " 5
Public defender offices can rely upon these national standards to
show policymakers that their lawyers' caseloads are excessive. The
Montgomery County Public Defender recently did just that, and
leveraged the study to successfully advocate funding for 15 new
lawyers-a 30% increase.6
For the Defense - Vol. 9, Issue 4

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 9, Issue 4
