Grant County public defense is improving

EPHRATA — Public defenders are visiting their indigent clients more frequently in jail, reducing complaints about quality of representation, according to a report released last week on public defense.

Grant County Superior Court defenders visited their clients in jail more than 1,900 times in 2006. There were 474 jail visits from January to March 2007, states Jeffery Robinson, the independent monitor for public defense.

"This is a clear and significant improvement over the number of jail visits in years before the settlement agreement," Robinson wrote in his latest quarterly report.

Grant County agreed in November 2005, to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services. The lawsuit alleged deficiencies in the county's public defense system.

The settlement agreement was reached after an October 2005, ruling by a Kittitas County Superior Court judge who found indigent clients had a well-grounded fear of not receiving effective legal counsel from Grant County's system.

The parties selected Robinson, a Seattle-based attorney, to monitor compliance by Grant County during the term of the agreement. The public defense system became the first in Washington to be subjected to comprehensive monitoring.

One of the most significant allegations of the lawsuit was clients, especially those in custody in Grant County Jail, had infrequent contact with their public defenders. And the clients had numerous, serious complaints about quality of representation.

"Virtually every client complaint I am aware of in 2006 was resolved to the client's satisfaction," Robinson wrote. "The number and nature of the client complaints continue to show the improvement that was reflected in 2006."

There were zero complaints last month, public defense supervisor Alan White said.

"If the number of complaints is any indication of how the system is doing, we're doing a really good job," said Grant County Commission Chairman LeRoy Allison.

But attorney caseloads, Robinson said, remains the most important issue facing the county.

Robinson expressed concern about the distribution of case assignments, with four attorneys being assigned too many of their 150-case maximums too early in the year. One public defender already received 62 cases in the first three months of 2007, while three others have between 46 and 50, he stated in his report.

"It is not tenable for defenders to handle 100 cases in the first six months of the year and only 50 cases in the last six months," Robinson wrote. "Such disparities in caseload will have a huge impact on the quality of representation."

Robinson directed White to limit public defenders to 50 cases per four-month period, to avoid potential caseload overflow. White said he's now stopped assigning cases to the four public defenders who are significantly ahead of the recommended rate for case assignments.

"I made the choice to exceed the target caseload limits, rather than to have clients go without an attorney," White stated in his April report to the commissioners. "Several (defenders) have reminded me they are significantly above their limits, but (the attorneys) have put in the additional time required to represent their additional clients."

In December and January, the county failed to promptly appoint 72 indigent clients with public defenders, generating a backlog of cases.

Defenders reached caseload limits in December and were not available to take more cases, leaving some defendants without a lawyer for up to three weeks. Some defendants were waiting in jail.

The backlog led the ACLU to conclude the county failed to comply in 2006 with the settlement agreement.

The county, knowing non-compliance could cost a $100,000 penalty per year, argued they were in "substantial compliance" in 2006.

A ruling on compliance for 2006 has yet to be made.

Robinson said the experience of December and January makes it clear that control of caseloads needs to occur early in the year.

"The ACLU agrees with the monitor that high caseloads is a critical issue," Doug Honig, ACLU spokesman in Seattle said Monday. "The county needs to be pro-active in ensuring that there are enough public defense attorneys available so that people don't sit in jail without lawyers."

The county contracted seven full-time and five part-time public defenders to handle more than 1,230 cases in superior court, Allison said. The county is on pace to assign about 1,150 cases, the commissioner said.

"We feel fairly comfortable with the number of attorneys we have contracted," Allison said. "There are enough attorneys to handle all the categories of cases."