Title: Jacobi v. Holbert

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

RENDERED: AUGUST 16, 2018 TO BE PUBLISHED 2017-SC-000092-DG n,DC STEVEN M. JACOBI V. ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2015-CA-001929-MR HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 15-CI-00032 F. LARRY HOLBERT APPELLANT APPELLEE OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE KELLER AFFIRMING “I t hink t he f ir st d ut y o f so c ie t y is just ic e .” We nd e l l Phil l ips, Disunio n: Two Disc o ur se s at Music Hal l (Jan. 20, 1861 and Fe b. 17, 1861). “Se e ing t hat al l me n ar e bo r n e qual , o ur f ir st c iv il d ut y is t o se e t hat o ur l aws t r e at t he m so .” Id. To t his e nd , it is a st r o ng t r ad it io n wit hin o ur nat io n t hat al l t ho se c har g e d wit h a c r ime ar e e nt it l e d t o t he e f f e c t iv e assist anc e o f c o unse l , no mat t e r t he ir f inanc ial asse t s. “[I]n o ur ad v e r sar y syst e m o f c r iminal just ic e , any pe r so n hal e d int o c o ur t , who is t o o po o r t o hir e a l awye r , c anno t be assur e d a f air t r ial unl e ss c o unse l is pr o v id e d f o r him. ... The r ig ht o f o ne c har g e d wit h c r ime t o c o unse l may no t be d e e me d f und ame nt al and e sse nt ial t o f air t r ial s in so me c o unt r ie s, but it is in o ur s.” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963). A d e f e nd ant “r e quir e s t he g uid ing hand o f c o unse l at e v e r y st e p in t he pr o c e e d ing s ag ainst him. Wit ho ut it , t ho ug h he be no t g uil t y, he f ac e s t he d ang e r o f c o nv ic t io n be c ause he d o e s no t kno w ho w t o e st abl ish his inno c e nc e .” Id. at 345 (quo t ing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69 (1932)).! It is wit h t his r e spe c t f ul st anc e t hat we must t o d ay e xamine t he r o l e o f t he publ ic d e f e nd e r wit hin t he g r e at e r g o v e r nme nt al c o mpo sit io n. The par t ie s be f o r e us ask t his Co ur t t o d e t e r mine whe t he r a publ ic d e f e nd e r , as an e mpl o ye e o f t he De par t me nt o f Publ ic Ad v o c ac y (DPA), a st at ut o r il y-c r e at e d ag e nc y o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h, is e nt it l e d t o qual if ie d immunit y wit hin o ur o v e r al l immunit y anal ysis. The Har d in Cir c uit Co ur t and Co ur t o f Appe al s d e t e r mine d t hat t he se at t o r ne ys ar e e nt it l e d t o c l aim t he d e f e nse o f qual if ie d immunit y. Af t e r t ho r o ug h e xaminat io n o f o ur c ase l aw and t he hist o r y and t r e at me nt o f publ ic d e f e nd e r s, we af f ir m t ho se ho l d ing s and d e t e r mine t hat e mpl o ye e s o f t he DPA ar e e nt it l e d t o asse r t qual if ie d immunit y wit hin t he pr o pe r c o nt e xt . 1 See also Ky Co nst . 11 (“In al l c r iminal pr o se c ut io ns t he ac c use d has t he r ig ht t o be he ar d by himse l f and c o unse l f .]”) and U.S. Co nst , ame nd . VI (“In al l c r iminal pr o se c ut io ns, t he ac c use d shal l e njo y ... t he Assist anc e o f Co unse l f o r his d e f e nc e .”). I. BACKGROUND St e v e n M. Jac o bi was appo int e d a publ ic d e f e nd e r af t e r be ing ind ic t e d in Har d in Co unt y. F. Lar r y Ho l be r t , t he n an at t o r ne y wit h t he l o c al o f f ic e o f t he DPA, se r v e d as Jac o bi’s c o unse l . In Aug ust 2003, Ho l be r t f ac il it at e d a pl e a ag r e e me nt o n Jac o bi’s be hal f in t wo se par at e c ase s. Jac o bi was ul t imat e l y f o und g uil t y o f manuf ac t ur ing me t hamphe t amine (g un e nhanc e d ), manuf ac t ur ing me t hamphe t amine (se c o nd o f f e nse ), and po sse ssio n o f d r ug par aphe r nal ia (se c o nd o f f e nse ). Eac h c ase had a r e c o mme nd e d c o nc ur r e nt se nt e nc e o f t we nt y ye ar s and t he t wo c ase s we r e t o r un c o nse c ut iv e l y f o r a t o t al f o r t y-ye ar se nt e nc e . The se nt e nc e s we r e , ho we v e r , pr o bat e d f o r f iv e ye ar s. In 2004, Jac o bi’s pr o bat io n was r e v o ke d , and he was o r d e r e d t o se r v e his f o r t y-ye ar se nt e nc e . In 2007, Jac o bi was inf o r me d he was r e quir e d t o se r v e 85% o f his se nt e nc e , pur suant t o Ke nt uc ky Re v ise d St at ut e (KRS) 439.3401, be f o r e par o l e e l ig ibil it y, be c ause he qual if ie d as a “v io l e nt o f f e nd e r .” He subse que nt l y f il e d f o r po st -c o nv ic t io n r e l ie f and t he Co ur t o f Appe al s, af t e r t he t r ial c o ur t ’s init ial d e nial wit ho ut he ar ing , r e quir e d t he c ir c uit c o ur t t o c o nd uc t a he ar ing as t his mist ake in ad v ic e c o ul d hav e be e n ine f f e c t iv e assist anc e o f c o unse l . The pr o se c ut io n and d e f e nse , inst e ad , ag r e e d t o v ac at e t he jud g me nt o f c o nv ic t io n and e nt e r e d a ne wl y-ne g o t iat e d g uil t y pl e a. Af t e r be ing se nt e nc e d t o a t o t al t we nt y-ye ar se nt e nc e , Jac o bi was ul t imat e l y d isc har g e d f r o m c ust o d y. Af t e r his r e l e ase , Jac o bi f il e d a mal pr ac t ic e ac t io n ag ainst Ho l be r t in Har d in Cir c uit Co ur t in 2015, al l e g ing t hat as a r e sul t o f Ho l be r t ’s ne g l ig e nt ad v ic e r e g ar d ing par o l e e l ig ibil it y, Jac o bi had se r v e d ye ar s l o ng e r in pr iso n t han he e xpe c t e d whe n e nt e r ing his g uil t y pl e a. The c ir c uit c o ur t g r ant e d Ho l be r t ’s mo t io n t o d ismiss, f ind ing t hat Ho l be r t was e nt it l e d t o qual if ie d o f f ic ial immunit y f r o m suit . The Co ur t o f Appe al s af f ir me d t he t r ial c o ur t ’s d ismissal , d e t e r mining t hat Ho l be r t , as an e mpl o ye e o f t he DPA was e nt it l e d t o inv o ke t he d e f e nse o f qual if ie d immunit y in t he se c ir c umst anc e s. We g r ant e d d isc r e t io nar y r e v ie w t o r e so l v e t his impo r t ant issue wit hin o ur c r iminal just ic e syst e m. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “[W]he t he r a par t ic ul ar d e f e nd ant is pr o t e c t e d by o f f ic ial immunit y is a que st io n o f l aw ... whic h we r e v ie w de novo.” Rowan County v. Sloas, 201 S.W.3d 469, 475 (Ky. 2006) (c it ing Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce, 132 S.W.3d 824, 825 (Ky. 2005) and Estate of Clark es rel. Mitchell v. Daviess County, 105 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Ky. App. 2003)). Ad d it io nal l y, “a mo t io n t o d ismiss f o r f ail ur e t o st at e a c l aim upo n whic h r e l ie f may be g r ant e d is a pur e que st io n o f l aw, a r e v ie wing c o ur t o we s no d e f e r e nc e t o a t r ial c o ur t ’s d e t e r minat io n; inst e ad , an appe l l at e c o ur t r e v ie ws t he issue de novo.” Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1, 1 (Ky. 2010) (e mphasis ad d e d ) (c it ing Morgan v. Bird, 289 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Ky. App. 2009)). The po st ur e o f t he c ase be f o r e us is a d ismissal o n t he g r o und s o f immunit y, l e av ing o nl y a l e g al que st io n f o r us t o r e so l v e . Thus, we r e v ie w t his issue be f o r e us de novo, wit ho ut d e f e r e nc e t o t he d e t e r minat io ns o f t he l o we r c o ur t s. III. ANALYSIS A. THE IMMUNITY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK “‘Of f ic ial immunit y’ is immunit y f r o m t o r t l iabil it y af f o r d e d t o publ ic o f f ic e r s and e mpl o ye e s f o r ac t s pr e f o r me d in t he e xe r c ise o f t he ir d isc r e t io nar y f unc t io ns.” Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.Sd 510, 521 (Ky. 2001). This e xt e nsio n o f immunit y st e ms f r o m t he immunit y be st o we d upo n t he ag e nc y f o r whic h t he y wo r k: “t he o f f ic e r ’s o r e mpl o ye e ’s ac t io ns ar e af f o r d e d t he same immunit y, if any t o whic h t he ag e nc y, it se l f , wo ul d be e nt it l e d [.]” Id. at 522. Thus, “[wjhe t he r an e nt it y is a g o v e r nme nt ag e nt is a t hr e sho l d c o nsid e r at io n in g o v e r nme nt al immunit y anal ysis.” Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept. v. Green’s Motorcycle Salvage, Inc., 286 S.W.Sd 790, 802 (Ky. 2009). This must be d e c id e d pr e l iminar il y be c ause an ag e nt o r e mpl o ye e ’s immunit y is an e xt e nsio n o f t he ag e nc y’s immunit y f r o m t he st at e ; wit ho ut t he ag e nc y’s immunit y, t he e mpl o ye e c an hav e no ne . A st at e ag e nc y “is e nt it l e d t o immunit y f r o m t o r t l iabil it y t o t he e xt e nt t hat it is pe r f o r ming a g o v e r nme nt al , as o ppo se d t o a pr o pr ie t aiy, f unc t io n.” Id. at 804 (quo t ing Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 519 (c it ing 72 Am.Jur .2d , States, Territories and Dependencies, § 104 (1974))). Thus, we must f ir st d e t e r mine whe t he r t he DPA it se l f is a st at e ag e nc y t o whic h immunit y has be e n g r ant e d . “Go v e r nme nt al immunit y e xt e nd s t o st at e ag e nc ie s t hat pe r f o r m g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io ns (i.e ., ac t as an ar m o f t he c e nt r al st at e g o v e r nme nt ) and ar e suppo r t e d by mo ne y f r o m t he st at e t r e asur y.” Autry V. Western Kentucky University, 219 S.W.3d 713, 717 (Ky. 2007).2 But o nl y whe n an ag e nc y was “c r e at e d t o pe r f o r m a g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io n” d o e s t he immunit y o f t he st at e e xt e nd t o t hat ag e nc y. Id. (c it ing Kentucky Center for the Arts Corp. v. Bems, 801 S.W.2d 327 (Ky. 1990)). This anal ysis t ur ns upo n “what an ag e nc y ac t ual l y d o e s.” Autry, 219 S.W.3d at 717. If t he ag e nc y is d e t e r mine d t o be c l o t he d in immunit y, we must r e so l v e whe t he r t he ag e nc y’s immunit y e xt e nd s t o t he par t ic ul ar ac t s o f t he e mpl o ye e in que st io n. “Qual if ie d o f f ic ial immunit y appl ie s t o publ ic o f f ic e r s o r e mpl o ye e s if t he ir ac t io ns ar e d isc r e t io nar y (i.e ., inv o l v ing pe r so nal d e l ibe r at io n, d e c isio ns, and jud g me nt ) and ar e mad e in g o o d f ait h and wit hin t he sc o pe o f t he ir aut ho r it y o r e mpl o yme nt .” Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept., 286 S.W.3d at 808- 09 (quo t ing Autry, 219 S.W.3d at 717). Out sid e o f t he se d isc r e t io nar y ac t s, mad e in g o o d f ait h and wit hin t he sc o pe o f e mpl o yme nt o r aut ho r it y, t he se e mpl o ye e s ar e no t e nt it l e d t o qual if ie d immunit y whe n t he y ar e sue d in t he ir ind iv id ual c apac it ie s. B. THE ROLE OF THE DPA The f ir st d e t e r minat io n we must make inv o l v e s asse ssing what t he DPA ac t ual l y d o e s. See Autry, 219 S.W.3d at 717. In 1972, at t he r e que st o f Go v e r no r We nd e l l Fo r d , t he Ge ne r al Asse mbl y c r e at e d t he Of f ic e o f Publ ic 2 This is a d ist inc t anal ysis f r o m t hat d ic t at e d by Comair, Inc. v. Lexington- Fayette Urban Cnty. Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91 (Ky. 2009). The Comair analysis appl ie s t o “quasi-g o v e mme nt al ” o r “publ ic ” e nt it ie s. Coppage Construction Co., Inc. v. Sanitation District No. 1, 459 S.W.3d 855, 859 (Ky. 2015). Whe r e , as he r e , t he ag e nc y in que st io n is an ac t ual ag e nc y o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h, it must just be d e t e r mine d t hat it is a st at e ag e nc y pe r f o r ming a g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io n in o r d e r t o be immune f r o m suit . De f e nd e r , no w kno wn as t he DPA. “Who We Ar e ,” ht t ps://d pa.kv .g o v /who we ar e /Pag e s/d e f aul t , aspx (l ast v isit e d June 27, 2018). The o r g anizat io n was t aske d wit h “r e pr e se nt [ing ] al l pe r so ns in Ke nt uc ky c har g e d wit h o r c o nv ic t e d o f a c r ime .” Id. Eac h ye ar , t he ag e nc y hand l e s o v e r 140,000 t r ial and po st -t r ial c ase s st at e wid e . Id. The ag e nc y’s l e g isl at iv e d ir e c t iv e is no w d ic t at e d by KRS Chapt e r 31. The DPA was e st abl ishe d “as an ind e pe nd e nt ag e nc y.” KRS 31.010. “[I]n o r d e r t o pr o v id e f o r t he e st abl ishme nt , maint e nanc e , and o pe r at io n o f a st at e -spo nso r e d and c o nt r o l l e d syst e m,” KRS 31.010, t he DPA is t aske d wit h “[t ]he r e pr e se nt at io n o f ind ig e nt pe r so ns ac c use d o f c r ime s o r me nt al st at e s whic h r e sul t in t he ir inc ar c e r at io n o r c o nf ine me nt [,]” KRS 31.010(1), as we l l as “[t ]he pur suit o f l e g al , ad minist r at iv e , and o t he r appr o pr iat e r e me d ie s t o e nsur e t he pr o t e c t io n o f t he r ig ht s o f pe r so ns wit h d isabil it ie s[.]” KRS 31.010(2). Hist o r ic al l y, t he DPA in Ke nt uc ky has be e n und e r f und e d and o v e r wo r ke d . In 2014, publ ic d e f e nd e r s we r e appo int e d in 156,699 c ase s, av e r ag ing o ut t o abo ut 472 ne w c ase s pe r ye ar pe r e ac h publ ic d e f e nd e r . Dav id Se r c huk, Kentucky Bar Association task force seeks to increase funding for burdened public defenders, Insider Louisville (June 19, 2015), ht t ps://insid e r l o uisv il l e .c o m/g o v e r nme nt /ke nt uc kv -bar -asso c iat io n-c r e at ing - t ask-f o r c e -inc r e ase -f und ing -st at e s-publ ic -d e f e nd e r s/. This numbe r has c o nt inue d t o r ise . In t he DPA’s 2017 Annual Lit ig at io n Re po r t , t he o r g anizat io n r e po r t e d 163,158 t o t al t r ial and po st -t r ial c ase s, av e r ag ing 459 pe r at t o r ne y wit h o nl y $276 f und ing pe r e ac h c ase . Department of Public Advocacy, Annual 7 Litigation Report Above and Beyond: Not the Probable, the Possible Fiscal Year 2017, 2 (2017). Ye t , d e spit e t he se c hal l e ng e s, t he DPA c o nt inue s t o st r iv e t o pe r f o r m it s l e g isl at iv e l y-d ir e c t e d t asks. The se t asks ar e no t l imit e d t o t he impo r t ant r o l e o f r e pr e se nt ing every single ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant who r e que st s, and is e nt it l e d t o , an at t o r ne y. KRS 31.030 l ist s mul t ipl e aut ho r it ie s and d ut ie s f o r t he DPA and e v e n st at e s t hat t he l ist is no t e xhaust iv e . So me o f t he se t asks inc l ud e “pr o mul g at ing st and ar d s and ad minist r at iv e r e g ul at io ns, r ul e s, and pr o c e d ur e s),]” KRS 31.030(4); “[c jo nd uc t ing r e se ar c h int o , and d e v e l o ping and impl e me nt ing me t ho d s o f , impr o v ing t he o pe r at io n o f t he c r iminal just ic e syst e m wit h r e g ar d t o ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s and o t he r d e f e nd ant s in c r iminal ac t io ns,” KRS 31.030(8); and t o “se e k and appl y f o r and so l ic it f und s f o r t he o pe r at io n o f t he d e f e nse o f ind ig e nt pe r so ns o r pr o t e c t io n o f t he pe r so ns wit h d isabil it ie s pr o g r ams f r o m any so ur c e , publ ic o r pr iv at e ...” KRS 31.030(12). The se ar e just a f e w o f t he d iv e r se and f ar -r e ac hing t asks t he DPA c o nt inue s t o und e r t ake t o war d s t he g o al o f univ e r sal just ic e in t he Co mmo nwe al t h. C. THE DPA IS A STATE AGENCY AND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY St at e ag e nc ie s pe r f o r ming g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io ns ar e c l o t he d in immunit y. Autry, 219 S.W.3d at 717. This anal ysis has l e d t o many t wist ing pat hs f o r o ur Co ur t as t he g o v e r nme nt has d e v e l o pe d nume r o us quasi- g o v e r nme nt al ag e nc ie s, ind e pe nd e nt l y c o nt r ac t e d f o r se r v ic e s wit h o t he r busine sse s pe r f o r ming pr o pr ie t aiy wo r k, and e xpand e d int o f ie l d s o ut sid e what was pr o babl y t he o r ig inal int e nt o f o ur f o und e r s. Ho we v e r , t his is t he 8 f r ame wo r k wit h whic h we must anal yze t he DPA. Giv e n t he se f o und at io nal pr inc ipl e s and t he af o r e me nt io ne d d ut ie s and hist o r y o f t he DPA, we hav e no he sit at io n in ho l d ing t hat t he DPA is a st at e ag e nc y. The DPA is a l e g isl at iv e l y- c r e at e d ag e nc y, it is pe r f o r ming an e sse nt ial g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io n, and it s l e g al l iabil it y d ir e c t l y af f e c t s t he publ ic t r e asur y. Fo r al l t he se r e aso ns, t he DPA is c l e ar l y a st at e ag e nc y t o whic h g o v e r nme nt al immunit y is e xt e nd e d . Be c ause t he ag e nc y is she l t e r e d by t he d e f e nse o f immunit y, it s e mpl o ye e s pe r f o r ming d isc r e t io nar y ac t s ar e al so abl e t o c l aim t he d e f e nse o f immunit y.3 1. The DPA is a legislatively created arm of the government The Ke nt uc ky l e g isl at ur e spe c if ic al l y c r e at e d t he DPA t o ad d r e ss t he ne e d f o r c o unse l ing and ad v o c at ing o n be hal f o f ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. In 1972, t he Ge ne r al Asse mbl y c r e at e d t he ag e nc y and it has r e maine d in e f f e c t sinc e t hat t ime . The st at ut e s g o v e r ning t he ag e nc y hav e be e n ame nd e d in so me ways but t he ag e nc y it se l f r e mains c o nst ant as it s e mpl o ye e s c o nt inue t o ad v o c at e f o r o ur ind ig e nt po pul at io n. Al t ho ug h no t ne c e ssar il y c o nc l usiv e , t his f ac t o r — c r e at io n by t he Ge ne r al Asse mbl y—we ig hs in f av o r o f f ind ing t hat t he DPA is a st at e ag e nc y. It is t r e at e d as an e xt e nsio n o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h it se l f . But , as st at e d in Autry, t hat ag e nc y must al so be pe r f o r ming a g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io n. 3 We al so no t e t hat , al t ho ug h Appe l l ant c it e s t o f e d e r al c ase s ho l d ing t hat f e d e r al publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e no t immune in c e r t ain ac t io ns, t he se c ase s ar e no t bind ing upo n t his Co ur t . “[W]he n st at e l aw c r e at e s a c ause o f ac t io n, t he St at e is f r e e t o d e f ine t he d e f e nse t o t hat c l aim, inc l ud ing t he d e f e nse o f immunit y ... .” Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 198 (1979). “[W]e int imat e no v ie ws as t o a publ ic d e f e nd e r ’s l iabil it y f o r mal pr ac t ic e in an appr o pr iat e c ase und e r st at e t o r t l aw.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). The se c ase s analyze federal publ ic d e f e nd e r s und e r federal l aw and al so e xamine t he nat ur e o f a publ ic d e f e nd e r as ac t ing und e r c o l o r o f l aw f o r pur po se s o f § 1983 ac t io ns. 9 2. The DPA is performing an essential governmental function, rather than a proprietary function An int e g r al po r t io n o f o ur immunit y anal ysis r e quir e s us t o d e t e r mine what t he ag e nc y in que st io n d o e s and whe t he r t hat is an e sse nt ial g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io n. Fo r e xampl e , t his Co ur t had t o d e t e r mine whe t he r f ir e d e par t me nt s we r e e nt it l e d t o an immunit y d e f e nse . In ho l d ing t he d e par t me nt in que st io n was e nt it l e d t o immunit y, we st at e d t hat “f ir e d e par t me nt s pe r f o r m a par ad ig mat ic f unc t io n o f t he g o v e r nme nt in ke e ping t he po pul o us and it s pr o pe r t y saf e f r o m f ir e .” Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept., 286 S.W.3d at 799. Publ ic d e f e nd e r s, in c o mpar iso n, se r v e t he “par ad ig mat ic f unc t io n o f t he g o v e r nme nt in ke e ping t he po pul o us and it s pr o g e ny saf e f r o m” wr o ng f ul c o nv ic t io ns. Whil e mo st o f t he publ ic o f f ic ial s in o ur g r e at Co mmo nwe al t h ar e har d -wo r king , just ic e -se e king , and e t hic al , t he publ ic d e f e nd e r is e v e r -pr e se nt t o war d o f f t he d ang e r s o f t ho se who wo ul d se e k t o t ur n just ic e asund e r . The y ar e g uar d ians o f l ibe r t y and t his saf e -ke e ping t ask c anno t be t r e at e d l ig ht l y. “Whe r e just ic e is d e nie d , whe r e po v e r t y is e nf o r c e d , whe r e ig no r anc e pr e v ail s, and whe r e any o ne c l ass is mad e t o f e e l t hat so c ie t y is an o r g anize d c o nspir ac y t o o ppr e ss, r o b and d e g r ad e t he m, ne it he r pe r so ns no r pr o pe r t y wil l be saf e .” Fr e d e r ic k Do ug l ass, Ad d r e ss in Washing t o n, D.C. o n t he 24^^ anniv e r sar y o f Emanc ipat io n (1886). It c anno t be d e nie d t hat t his ag e nc y is d e sig ne d t o he l p e nsur e t he sanc t it y o f o ur just ic e syst e m. We c anno t ig no r e t hat it is a he ad y und e r t aking f o r o ur g o v e r nme nt t o g uar ant e e t he r ig ht t o c o unse l und e r bo t h t he f e d e r al and st at e c o nst it ut io ns, pur suant t o t he jud ic ial d e c r e e o f Gideon u. Wainwright. It is o nl y t hr o ug h t he ac t io ns and har d wo r k o f 10 t he DPA t hat t his c hal l e ng e and o bl ig at io n c an be ac hie v e d . We ho l d t hat t he assur anc e o f just ic e f o r ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s is an e sse nt ial g o v e r nme nt al t ask. No t o nl y is it e sse nt ial but it is c o nst it ut io nal l y-mand at e d . Wit ho ut t he l e g isl at iv e c r e at io n o f t he DPA, t he se ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s wo ul d be subje c t t o t he whims o f a t ur bul e nt pr o c e d ur al mir e , swung t o and f r o wit ho ut ho pe o f f ind ing so l ac e . It is o ur g o v e r nme nt ’s pr e r o g at iv e and r e spo nsibil it y t o pr o v id e f o r t he c o nst it ut io nal r ig ht s o f suc h d e f e nd ant s. Of t e n, t he g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io n anal ysis is c o nt r ast e d t o pr o pr ie t ar y und e r t aking s t hat an ag e nc y may par t ake in. “A pr o pr ie t ar y f unc t io n is o f t he t ype no r mal l y e ng ag e d in by busine sse s o r c o r po r at io ns and wil l l ike l y inc l ud e an e l e me nt o f c o nd uc t ing an ac t iv it y f o r pr o f it .” Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept., 286 S.W.Sd at 804 (c it ing Schwindel v. Meade County, 113 S.W.3d 159, 168 (Ky. 2003)). De spit e Appe l l ant ’s ar g ume nt s, t he DPA is no t pe r f o r ming a pr o pr ie t ar y t ask. The pur po se o f t he d ist inc t io n be t we e n g o v e r nme nt al and pr o pr ie t aiy f unc t io ns is t o c r e at e a r e aso nabl e c o mpr o mise be t we e n al l o wing st at e ag e nc ie s t o pe r f o r m t he ir g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io ns wit ho ut hav ing t o answe r f o r t he ir d e c isio ns in t he c o nt e xt o f t o r t l it ig at io n, and al l o wing pr iv at e e nt e r pr ise s t o pur sue t he ir l e g it imat e busine ss int e r e st s wit ho ut unf air c o mpe t it io n f r o m g o v e r nme nt ag e nc ie s pe r f o r ming pur e l y pr o pr ie t aiy f unc t io ns wit ho ut t he same c o st s and r isks inhe r e nt in c o mme r c ial e nt e r pr ise . Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept., 286 S.W.3d at 804 (quo t ing Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 521). A g o v e r nme nt ag e nc y’s immunit y is l imit e d t o g o v e r nme nt al t asks r at he r t han al l o wing it an unf air ad v ant ag e whe n par t aking in pr o f it -se e king v e nt ur e s. Al t ho ug h l e g al r e pr e se nt at io n can be a pr o pr ie t aiy f unc t io n, f o r DPA 11 at t o r ne ys, it is no t d o ne f o r a pr o pr ie t ar y pur po se . It is int e nd e d as t he f ul f il l me nt o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h ’s r e spo nsibil it y t o pr o v id e c o unse l f o r ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. DPA at t o r ne ys ar e paid but t he ag e nc y it se l f is no t in it s busine ss f o r pr o f it . In f ac t , KRS 31.215(1) spe c if ic al l y pr o hibit s appo int e d at t o r ne ys f r o m ac c e pt ing f e e s f o r t he r e pr e se nt at io n o f ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. DPA at t o r ne ys ar e no t at an unf air c o mme r c ial ad v ant ag e t o pr iv at e at t o r ne ys; t he y ar e r e pr e se nt ing par t ie s t hat wo ul d be unabl e t o pay at t o r ne ys in t he pr iv at e se c t o r . The ag e nc y c o nsist e nt l y f ul f il l s it s g o al s whil e be ing c o nsist e nt l y und e r f und e d . The DPA is c l e ar l y no t f unc t io ning as a pr o f it -d r iv e n e nt it y. 3. The DPA is supported by the state treasury Hist o r ic al l y, t he just if ic at io n f o r t he t he o r y o f so v e r e ig n immunit y is t o l imit t he ne g at iv e impac t l e g al l iabil it y c an hav e upo n t he publ ic t r e asur y. See Coppage Construction Co., Inc., 459 S.W.3d at 865 (Ve nt e r s, J., c o nc ur r ing ). “[T]he hist o r ic al o r ig in o f t he d o c t r ine o f so v e r e ig n immunit y was, in par t , t he pr o t e c t io n o f t he king ’s pur se .” Id. If l e g al l iabil it y f o r t he ag e nc y in que st io n wo ul d je o par d ize t he publ ic t r e asur y, t he n t he r e is a st r o ng just if ic at io n f o r t he ag e nc y be ing immune f r o m suit , subje c t t o l imit at io ns o r waiv e r by t he l e g isl at ur e . The DPA is f und e d t hr o ug h t he bud g e t c r e at e d by t he Ke nt uc ky Ge ne r al Asse mbl y; t he f und s c o me d ir e c t l y f r o m t he Co mmo nwe al t h ’s t r e asur y. See Department of Public Advocacy, Annual Litigation Report Above and Beyond: Not the Probable, the Possible Fiscal Year 2017, 3 (2017). Publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e paid by t he st at e t r e asur y; t he y pay int o t he r e t ir e me nt syst e m. The hist o r ic al just if ic at io n f o r so v e r e ig n immunit y is pr e se nt he r e . Inc r e asing 12 c o st s f o r t he DPA in d e f e nd ing ag ainst mal pr ac t ic e suit s wo ul d ine v it abl y t r ic kl e d o wn t o t axpaye r s and ul t imat e l y ne g at iv e l y impac t t he e nt ir e st at e and t he ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s be ing r e pr e se nt e d . 4. This immunity extends to public defenders as employees of the DPA Fo r al l t he se r e aso ns, we ho l d t hat t he DPA is a st at e ag e nc y c l o t he d in g o v e r nme nt al immunit y. As suc h, publ ic d e f e nd e r s, as e mpl o ye e s o f t he DPA, ar e , in c e r t ain c ir c umst anc e s, e nt it l e d t o asse r t qual if ie d immunit y as a d e f e nse . “[PJubl ic e mpl o ye e s ac t ing in t he ir ind iv id ual c apac it ie s ar e e nt it l e d o nl y t o o f f ic ial immunit y f o r t he ir d isc r e t io nar y ac t s o c c ur r ing wit hin t he sc o pe o f t he ir e mpl o yme nt .” Commonwealth of Kentucky Board of Claims v. Harris, 59 S.W.3d 896, 899 (Ky. 2001) (c it at io n o mit t e d ). Thus, whe t he r Ho l be r t is e nt it l e d t o qual if ie d immunit y und e r t he se c ir c umst anc e s t ur ns o n whe t he r his ac t io ns in ad v ising Jac o bi we r e “d isc r e t io nar y.” We wil l ad d r e ss t his issue in t ur n; ho we v e r , we must f ir st e xpl ain t he sig nif ic anc e o f t he d e c isio n t hat publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e e mpl o ye e s o f t he st at e . Appe l l ant se e ms t o ar g ue t hat t his l abe l so me ho w sig nif ic ant l y af f e c t s t he ind e pe nd e nt e xe r c ise o f jud g me nt t hat publ ic d e f e nd e r s c an ut il ize in ad v ising t he ir c l ie nt s. We d isag r e e . i. DPA attorneys may be “employees” of the state but are still empowered to act independently to represent their clients Appe l l ant ar g ue s t hat t he immunit y anal ysis sho ul d be g in and e nd wit h whe t he r a publ ic d e f e nd e r ac t s as an “ag e nt ” o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h. But t his is a misr e pr e se nt at io n o f o ur immunit y anal ysis. The que st io n is no t l imit e d t o whe t he r t he spe c if ic e mpl o ye e is an “ag e nt ” o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h but whe t he r 13 t he ag e nc y f o r whic h he o r she wo r ks is an ag e nt o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h. As he l d he r e in, t he DPA is a st at e ag e nc y e nt it l e d t o g o v e r nme nt al immunit y. Appe l l ant d o e s c o r r e c t l y st at e t hat publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e ag e nt s o f t he ir c l ie nt s al o ne , r at he r t han se r v ing t he int e r e st s o f ano t he r par t y; ho we v e r , t his d o e s no t me an t hat publ ic d e f e nd e r s c anno t be e mpl o ye e s o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h. The d e sc r ipt io ns ar e not mut ual l y e xc l usiv e . Appe l l ant misund e r st and s f r o m whe r e a publ ic e mpl o ye e ’s immunit y st e ms; it is an e xt e nsio n o f t he agency's immunit y r at he r t han a d e t e r minat io n mad e o n ind iv id ual l e v e l s f o r e ac h e mpl o ye e . The e mpl o ye e and his o r he r ac t s spe c if ic al l y c o me int o c o nsid e r at io n in t he d isc r e t io nar y v e r sus minist e r ial anal ysis. Ag e nt and e mpl o ye e ar e no t int e r c hang e abl e t e r ms; simpl y be c ause a publ ic d e f e nd e r is t he l e g al ag e nt o f his ind ig e nt c l ie nt d o e s no t me an he is no l o ng e r employed by t he Co mmo nwe al t h. Ad d it io nal l y, a publ ic d e f e nd e r ’s employment by t he Co mmo nwe al t h d o e s no t d iminish his ind e pe nd e nt agency in ad v o c at ing f o r his c l ie nt . The Ke nt uc ky Supr e me Co ur t r ul e s st il l d ic t at e t he bo und s o f a publ ic d e f e nd e r ’s e t hic al be hav io r . Ev e n t ho ug h t he c o f f e r s o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h ’s t r e asur y ar e ut il ize d in paying t he publ ic d e f e nd e r , t he publ ic d e f e nd e r c an st il l e xe r c ise ind e pe nd e nt jud g me nt in r e pr e se nt ing his o r he r c l ie nt . Appe l l ant ar g ue s t hat ho l d ing publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e DPA e mpl o ye e s e nt it l e d t o qual if ie d immunit y wil l ipso facto r e mo v e t he ind e pe nd e nt nat ur e o f a publ ic d e f e nd e r ’s r e pr e se nt at io n o f c l ie nt s. This is simpl y a l e g al f al l ac y. The DPA wo r ks ind e pe nd e nt l y and e st abl ishe s it s o wn r ul e s and ad minist r at iv e pr o c e d ur e s t o maint ain t his 14 ind e pe nd e nt r e pr e se nt at io n. If an ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant e v e r f e e l s t he ne e d t o r aise t he issue o f ind e pe nd e nt ad v ic e o f c o unse l , it is an issue d ist inc t f r o m t he immunit y anal ysis. He r e , we must jud g e t he immunit y o f t he DPA as a who l e wit hin a l ar g e r f r ame wo r k. And t he r e is no f und ame nt al basis f o r f ind ing t hat payme nt by t he Co mmo nwe al t h wil l af f e c t t he abil it y o f publ ic d e f e nd e r s t o ind e pe nd e nt l y r e pr e se nt t he ir c l ie nt s. Publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e no t paid by a me r it syst e m; t he ir sal ar y is no t l inke d t o t he suc c e ss o r f ail ur e o f t he ir c l ie nt s ’ c ase s. The r e is no r e aso n t o assume t hat be ing an employee o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h af f e c t s t he ind e pe nd e nt r e pr e se nt at io n o f ind ig e nt c l ie nt s by publ ic d e f e nd e r s. ii. Public defenders act as adversaries to prosecutors, not to the interests of the Commonwealth Appe l l ant al so pr e mise s his ar g ume nt o n t he id e a t hat publ ic d e f e nd e r s, as r e pr e se nt at iv e s o f an ind ig e nt c r iminal d e f e nd ant , ar e wo r king ad v e r se t o t he int e r e st s o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h and it s c it ize ns. This is simpl y no t so . Pr o v id ing l e g al c o unse l t o ind ig e nt pe r so ns is a v e r y int e g r al int e r e st o f t he Co mmo nwe al t h at l ar g e . “The publ ic d e f e nd e r ’s r o l e is t hat o f an ad v e r sar y t o t he pr o se c ut o r —no t an ad v e r sar y o f t he syst e m but an int e g r al par t o f it .” St e phe n L. Mil l ic h, Public Defender Malpractice Liability in California, 11 Whittier L. Rev. 535, 537 (1989). Our c r iminal just ic e syst e m is an ad v e r sar ial o ne ; ho we v e r , it s ad v e r sar ial nat ur e is, in e sse nc e , o f be ne f it t o t he Co mmo nwe al t h it se l f . Pr o se c ut o r s pr o t e c t so c ie t y by at t e mpt ing t o pr o t e c t c it ize ns f r o m c r iminal be hav io r . Jud g e s e nsur e t he ne ut r al and unbiase d nat ur e o f t he syst e m. Publ ic d e f e nd e r s, in t ur n, pr o t e c t so c ie t y by e nsur ing t hat ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s ar e t r e at e d e qual l y by t he syst e m and t hat e v e r y 15 d e f e nd ant has an e qual o ppo r t unit y f o r d e f e nd ing himse l f . The se ar e v it al int e r e st s f o r a c iv il ize d so c ie t y. De spit e publ ic d e f e nd e r s ac t ing as ad v e r sar y t o pr o se c ut o r s, t he y ar e ac t ing in ad v anc e o f so c ie t y’s int e r e st s as a who l e : t he int e r e st o f hav ing a f air , e qual , and just c r iminal syst e m. D. PUBLIC POLICY SUPPORTS THE GRANTING OF IMMUNITY TO PUBLIC DEFENDERS “It is be yo nd c hal l e ng e t hat publ ic po l ic y is d e t e r mine d by t he c o nst it ut io n and t he l e g isl at ur e t hr o ug h t he e nac t me nt o f st at ut e s.” Giuliani v. Guiler, 951 S.W.2d 318, 321 (Ky. 1997). “Ho we v e r , whe n t ho se o r g ans o f publ ic po l ic y ar e sil e nt , t he d e c isio n c an be mad e by t he c o ur t s.” Id. (c it ing Chreste v. Louisville Railway Co., 180 S.W. 49 (1915); Kentucky State Fair Bd. V. Fowler, 221 S.W.2d 435 (Ky. 1949); Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 828 S.W.2d 610 (Ky. 1992)). “In t he abse nc e o f a l e g isl at iv e d e c r e e , c o ur t s may ad o pt and appl y publ ic po l ic y pr inc ipl e s.” Giuliani, 951 S.W.2d at 321. Base d o n t his l ang uag e in o ur pr e c e d e nt , we be l ie v e it pe r missibl e t o e xamine t he publ ic po l ic y o f o ur d e c isio n. Giv e n t hat t he l e g isl at ur e has c ho se n t o e nt r ust t he DPA wit h suc h a sanc t if ie d r e spo nsibil it y, it has c l e ar l y e mpo we r e d t he ag e nc y wit h t r ust and g o v e r nme nt al r e spo nsibil it ie s. The ho l d ing o f immunit y f o r publ ic d e f e nd e r s is so und l y base d in l aw; ho we v e r , it is al so t he r e f o r e f ir ml y suppo r t e d by many publ ic po l ic y pr inc ipl e s. 1. Public defenders have no discretion in choosing clients or cases The t hr e at o f a mal pr ac t ic e ac t io n c an o f t e n be mit ig at e d , al t ho ug h no t e l iminat e d , by using d isc r e t io n in t aking o n c l ie nt s and c ase s. A publ ic 16 d e f e nd e r , ho we v e r , has no suc h d isc r e t io n. “[A] publ ic d e f e nd e r may no t r e je c t a c l ie nt , but is o bl ig at e d t o r e pr e se nt who me v e r is assig ne d t o he r o r him, r e g ar d l e ss o f he r o r his c ur r e nt c ase l o ad o r t he d e g r e e o f d if f ic ul t y t he c ase pr e se nt s.” Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W.2d 771, 775 (Minn. 1993). The publ ic d e f e nd e r , o nc e appo int e d , c anno t r e f use t o r e pr e se nt unpo pul ar o r o bno xio us c l ie nt s, but a pr iv at e at t o r ne y usual l y c an. Ec o no mic al l y, t he publ ic d e f e nd e r c anno t c har g e a f e e t o c o v e r a mal pr ac t ic e insur anc e pr e mium, but a pr iv at e at t o r ne y c an and wil l . In ad d it io n, a publ ic d e f e nd e r is paid at t he same r at e f o r a mur d e r c ase as f o r a r e c kl e ss d r iv ing d e f e nse , whic h may no t be t he c ase f o r a suc c e ssf ul pr iv at e pr ac t it io ne r . St e phe n L. Mil l ic h, Public Defender Malpractice Liability in California, 11 Whittier L. Rev. 535, 538 (1989). The publ ic d e f e nd e r has no po ssibl e t o o l s t o ut il ize in pr o t e c t ing himse l f o r he r se l f f r o m t he t hr e at o f mal pr ac t ic e ac t io n by d isg r unt l e d c l ie nt s. The y must t ake e v e r y c ase in whic h t he c o ur t d e e ms appo int me nt ne c e ssar y. The publ ic d e f e nd e r is unabl e t o manag e t he pr ac t ic e o f l aw in a pr o pr ie t ar y and r isk-r e d uc ing manne r l ike pr iv at e pr ac t it io ne r s. This d if f e r e nc e d ir e c t l y r e l at e s t o t he f ac t t hat publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e r e spo nsibl e f o r und e r t aking a g o v e r nme nt al t ask, wit ho ut d ist inc t io n o f who r e que st s t he se r v ic e if t hat pe r so n is ind ig e nt . As suc h, it is se nsic al t o al l o w t he DPA’s immunit y t o e xt e nd t o publ ic d e f e nd e r s, as a g o v e r nme nt al mit ig at io n f o r t he r isks whic h DPA at t o r ne ys ar e r e quir e d t o ac c e pt . 2. Public defenders are working in an underfunded and overworked environment It is c o mmo n kno wl e d g e , and has be e n c it e d t o he r e in, t hat t he DPA is a g o v e r nme nt ag e nc y t hat c o nsist e nt l y wo r ks wit h sc ar c e r e so ur c e s, l imit e d f und ing , and an e v e r -inc r e asing wo r kl o ad . “An inc r e asing c r ime r at e and an 17 e c o no mic c l imat e whic h has r e sul t e d in inc r e ase d c l aims o f ind ig e nc y and l o we r st at e bud g e t s t o f und g o v e r nme nt po sit io ns hav e c ause d publ ic d e f e nd e r c ase l o ad s t o g r o w d r amat ic al l y.” Dziubak, 503 N.W.2d at 776 (c it at io n o mit t e d ). This sit uat io n is no t unique t o any o ne jur isd ic t io n. Nat io nwid e , publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e o v e r wo r ke d and und e r paid . Ye t , as a so c ie t y, we c o nt inue t o r e l y upo n t he m t o pr o t e c t t he l e g al int e r e st s o f ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. The se at t o r ne ys c o nt inue t o e nd e av o r t o ac c o mpl ish t his l o f t y g o al , d e spit e t he ir l imit e d r e so ur c e s. “It wo ul d be an unf air bur d e n t o subje c t t he publ ic d e f e nd e r t o po ssibl e mal pr ac t ic e f o r ac t s o r o missio ns d ue t o impo ssibl e c ase l o ad s and an und e r -f und e d o f f ic e : so me t hing c o mpl e t e l y o ut o f t he d e f e nd e r ’s c o nt r o l .” Id. Of t e n, publ ic d e f e nd e r s ’ ac t io ns and abil it ie s in a c ase ar e l imit e d by t he g o v e r nme nt ’s bud g e t ; as suc h, it is c o mmo n se nse t o e xt e nd g o v e r nme nt al immunit y t o t he ir ac t io ns as pr o t e c t io n f o r t he se sho r t ag e s. The publ ic d e f e nd e r d o e s e v e r yt hing he o r she c an wit h t he r e so ur c e s g iv e n him o r he r ; it wo ul d be an unf air bur d e n t o ho l d t he m r e spo nsibl e f o r sho r t ag e s no t o f t he ir o wn making . 3. Court-appointed attorneys are an essential facet of our criminal justice system and should be immune from suit, just like judges and prosecutors Jud g e s, pr o se c ut o r s, and publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e a pr o t e c t iv e unit f o r t he c r iminal just ic e syst e m. The y wo r k in t and e m t o pr o t e c t t he v ar io us int e r e st s o f so c ie t y and d e f e nd ant s wit hin o ur c r iminal pr o c e ss. Pr o se c ut o r s e njo y abso l ut e immunit y in so me sit uat io ns and qual if ie d immunit y in o t he r s. See McCollum V. Garrett, 880 S.W.2d 530, 534 (Ky. 1994). Jud g e s ar e al so immune 18 f o r “any jud ic ial ac t .” Baker v. Fletcher, 204 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Ky. 2006). “Immunit y e xist s t o f r e e g o v e r nme nt o f f ic ial s f r o m t he bur d e nso me c o nse que nc e s o f l it ig at io n.” Dziubak, 503 N.W.2d at 776. “We pe r c e iv e no v al id r e aso n t o e xt e nd t his immunit y t o st at e and f e d e r al pr o se c ut o r s and jud g e s and t o wit hho l d it f r o m st at e -appo int e d and st at e -subsid ize d d e f e nd e r s.” Id. at m (quo t ing Brown v. Joseph, 463 F.2d 1046, 148-49 (3d Cir . 1972) (c it at io n o mit t e d )). “Immunit y [f o r publ ic d e f e nd e r s] pr e se r v e s t he c r iminal just ic e syst e m whic h r e l ie s upo n t he jud g e , pr o se c ut o r and publ ic d e f e nd e r as e sse nt ial par t ic ipant s. This se r v e s t he be st int e r e st s o f ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s and o f so c ie t y as a who l e .” Dziubak, 503 N.W.2d at 777. “The jud g e , d ist r ic t at t o r ne y, and publ ic d e f e nd e r ar e par t s o f a c o ur t r o o m t r iumv ir at e . Eac h has a f unc t io n whic h is e sse nt ial t o t he wo r king o f t he syst e m.” St e phe n L. Mil l ic h, Public Defender Malpractice Liability in California, 11 Whittier L. Rev. 535, 537 (1989). The publ ic d e f e nd e r ’s “e xpe r ie nc e [] and f ul l t ime d e v o t io n t o t he d e f e nse o f c r iminal l y ac c use d ind ig e nt s r e sul t s in an inc r e ase d pr o f e ssio nal ism whic h he l ps t he syst e m f unc t io n be t t e r . Thus, so c ie t y r e aps t he be ne f it f r o m a smo o t he r f unc t io ning c r iminal just ic e syst e m.” Id. at 538. The se t hr e e par t s o f t he syst e m ar e al l e sse nt ial c o g s in t he mac hine o f c r iminal just ic e . Wit ho ut o ne , t he syst e m c an g r ind t o a hal t , o f t e n punishing par t ic ipant s and so c ie t y in t he pr o c e ss. Thus, we pe r c e iv e no r e aso n t o e xe mpt publ ic d e f e nd e r s f r o m t he immunit y pr o c e ss whil e pr o se c ut o r s and jud g e s r e c e iv e t he be ne f it o f t he d e f e nse . 19 4. Failing to immunize public defenders in these situations would have a chilling effect on indigents’ representation “The po t e nt ial ‘c hil l ing e f f e c t ’ t hat t he t hr e at o f l e g al mal pr ac t ic e suit s has ag ainst c o ur t appo int e d c o nt r ac t at t o r ne ys wit ho ut so me qual if ie d immunit y is e spe c ial l y e v id e nt c o nsid e r ing t he unique r e l at io nship be t we e n [an appo int e d ] at t o r ne y and his c l ie nt .” Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949, 952 (De l . 1990). A publ ic d e f e nd e r c anno t “we ig h[] t he t hr e at and po t e nt ial f o r g ain in br ing ing l it ig at io n o r e v e n r e je c t his c l ie nt if t he me r it s o f t he c ase we r e no t wo r t hy.” Id. (c it at io n o mit t e d ). “Re pr e se nt at io n o f an ind ig e nt c l ie nt is no t a me r e v o l unt ar y und e r t aking , but is par t o f a l awye r ’s o bl ig at io n!.]” Id. Appo int e d at t o r ne ys “d o no t hav e t he abil it y, whic h t he y o r d inar il y wo ul d po sse ss in t he mar ke t pl ac e , t o r e je c t suc h c l ie nt s o r c ase s.” Id. Giv e n t he se c o nsid e r at io ns, t he De l awar e Co ur t d e t e r mine d t hat “a f ail ur e t o r e c o g nize ... qual if ie d immunit y wo ul d unne c e ssar il y ‘c hil l ’...” t he st at e ’s c o nt r ac t at t o r ne y syst e m f o r ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. Id. Immunizing publ ic d e f e nd e r s “e nsur e [s] t hat t he publ ic d e f e nd e r wil l be d e v o t e d so l e l y t o t he c l ie nt ’s c ase wit ho ut c o nc e r n f o r subse que nt pe r so nal l iabil it y.” St e phe n L. Mil l ic h, Public Defender Malpractice Liability in California, 11 Whittier L. Rev. 535, 542 (1989). “The c o nf l ic t o f int e r e st d isappe ar s and t he d e f e nd ant r e c e iv e s qual it y r e pr e se nt at io n. This al so e nsur e s t hat t he c r iminal just ic e syst e m wo r ks as it is suppo se d t o wo r k, i.e ., t he publ ic d e f e nd e r e f f e c t iv e l y r e pr e se nt s t he c l ie nt t o t he be st o f t hat l awye r ’s abil it y wit hin t he e st abl ishe d r ul e s.” Id. We be l ie v e , l ike t he De l awar e c o ur t s, t hat a 20 f ail ur e t o r e c o g nize t his immunit y f o r o ur publ ic d e f e nd e r s c o ul d hav e a c hil l ing e f f e c t upo n t he publ ic d e f e nd e r r e pr e se nt at io n syst e m. By e xt e nd ing t he DPA’s immunit y t o publ ic d e f e nd e r s, t he publ ic d e f e nd e r c an c o nc e r n he r se l f so l e l y wit h r e pr e se nt ing t he ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant t o t he f ul l e st o f he r abil it y, r at he r t han be c o nst ant l y c o nc e r ne d wit h ho w a sho r t ag e o f f und s o r r e so ur c e s c o ul d l e ad t o a mal pr ac t ic e l awsuit . It e nc o ur ag e s c o o pe r at io n and t he maximum e f f o r t f o r r e so l v ing e ac h c ase in a d e f e nd ant ’s f av o r . Fail ing t o r e c o g nize t his immunit y c o ul d po t e nt ial l y st if l e t he publ ic d e f e nd e r ’s abil it y t o f ul l y wo r k wit h he r c l ie nt , f ind ing he r se l f at o d d s wit h t he ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant ; she c o ul d be d ist r ac t e d , st r ug g l ing t o ke e p a c l ie nt happy t o av o id a l awsuit r at he r t han c o nt inuing t o r e pr e se nt t he c l ie nt ’s int e r e st s and ke e p t he whe e l o f just ic e c o nsist e nt l y mo v ing . Re c o g nizing t his immunit y is in t he int e r e st o f publ ic d e f e nd e r s, ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s, and t he c o mmunit y. 5. Limited resources of the DPA should be utilized in defending accused persons, rather than defense of malpractice claims This Co ur t has r e c o g nize d t hat t he r e ar e inhe r e nt “so c ial c o st s ” t o l it ig at io n wit h a g o v e r nme nt al e nt it y: “t he e xpe nse s o f l it ig at io n, t he d iv e r sio n o f o f f ic ial e ne r g y f r o m pr e ssing publ ic issue , and t he d e t e r r e nc e o f abl e c it ize ns f r o m ac c e pt anc e o f publ ic o f f ic e .” Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept., 286 S.W.3d at 810 (quo t ing Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 591, n.l 2 (1998) (int e r nal c it at io n o mit t e d )). The Minne so t a Supr e me Co ur t d e t e r mine d t hat wit ho ut immunit y f o r t he publ ic d e f e nd e r , “t he c o st and bur d e n o f d e f e nd ing c iv il c l aims wil l o nl y e xac e r bat e ” t he har sh und e r f und e d sit uat io n t he se o f f ic e s f ac e e ac h d ay. Dziubak, 503 N.W.2d at 776. “In t he e nd , t his wo ul d hur t ind ig e nt 21 d e f e nd ant s, no t he l p t he m.” Id. “[R]e so ur c e s c o nsume d t o d e f e nd ag ainst mal pr ac t ic e suit s f il e d ag ainst publ ic d e f e nd e r s wo ul d t ake away f r o m t he al r e ad y l imit e d r e so ur c e s av ail abl e t o se r v e t he ind ig e nt c o nst it ue nc y.” Id. “Immunit y f r o m suit f o r publ ic d e f e nd e r s be st se r v e s t he ind ig e nt po pul at io n in pr e se r v ing t he r e so ur c e s o f t he d e f e nd e r ’s o f f ic e f o r t he d e f e nse o f t he c r iminal l y ac c use d .” Id. at 777. Publ ic d e f e nd e r s al r e ad y wo r k in an e c o no mic al l y st unt e d e nv ir o nme nt ; al l o wing mal pr ac t ic e suit s t o d e pl e t e t ho se r e so ur c e s f ur t he r wo ul d be av e r se t o t he int e r e st s o f so c ie t y. 6. Public defenders encourage the effective function of the criminal justice system “The ac c use d d e f e nd ant is no t t he so l e be ne f ic iar y [o f t he publ ic d e f e nd e r syst e m]. So c ie t y as a who l e d e pe nd s upo n t he r o l e o f d e f e nse c o unse l t o se c ur e an o r d e r e d syst e m o f l ibe r t y and just ic e , as o r d aine d by o ur Co nst it ut io n.” Id. As st at e d , publ ic d e f e nd e r s se r v e a pur po se wit hin t his Co mmo nwe al t h ’s syst e m o f c r iminal just ic e . We c anno t st r e ss e no ug h t he impo r t anc e o f t his r o l e t o pr o t e c t ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. Whe n we as a Co mmo nwe al t h st r iv e t o pr o t e c t t his “o r d e r e d syst e m” o f just ic e , we pr o t e c t t he g o al o f a f air and just syst e m o f l ibe r t y. This aim is an e v e r -mo v ing t ar g e t , an o ng o ing pr o c e ss, but publ ic d e f e nd e r s c o nt inue t o pr o t e c t t hat aspir at io n. E. LEGAL COUNSEL INVOLVES DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS We hav e he l d t hat t he DPA is a st at e ag e nc y pe r f o r ming a g o v e r nme nt al t ask. As suc h, t he ag e nc y’s immunit y e xt e nd s t o it s e mpl o ye e s pe r f o r ming d isc r e t io nar y t asks. “Whe n pe r f o r manc e o f t he jo b al l o ws f o r t he g o v e r nme nt al e mpl o ye e t o make a jud g me nt c al l , o r se t a po l ic y, t he f ac t t hat t he r e is 22 unc e r t aint y as t o what ac t s wil l be st f ul f il l t he g o v e r nme nt al pur po se has r e sul t e d in immunit y be ing e xt e nd e d t o t ho se ac t s whe r e t he g o v e r nme nt al e mpl o ye e must e xe r c ise d isc r e t io n.” Marson v. Thomason, 438 S.W.3d 292, 296 (Ky. 2014). “[A] d isc r e t io nar y ac t is usual l y d e sc r ibe d as o ne c al l ing f o r a ‘g o o d f ait h jud g me nt c al l [] mad e in a l e g al l y unc e r t ain e nv ir o nme nt .’” Id. at 297 (quo t ing Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522). It “inv o l v e [e s] t he e xe r c ise o f d isc r e t io n and jud g me nt , o r pe r so nal d e l ibe r at io n, d e c isio n, and jud g me nt .” Marson, 438 S.W.3d at 297 (quo t ing Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522). “[D]isc r e t io naiy ac t s o r f unc t io ns ar e t ho se t hat ne c e ssar il y r e quir e t he e xe r c ise o f r e aso n in t he ad apt at io n o f me ans t o an e nd , and d isc r e t io n in d e t e r mining ho w o r whe t he r t he ac t shal l be d o ne o r t he c o ur se pur sue d .” Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235, 240 (Ky. 2010). The ac t o f ad v ising a c l ie nt is, at it s c o r e , a d isc r e t io nar y f unc t io n. It inv o l v e s e xamining t he l e g al l and sc ape , t he mul t i-f ac e t e d issue s wit hin e ac h se par at e c ase , d e t e r mining what is impo r t ant and whic h f ac t s ar e ne g l ig ibl e , t aking int o c o nsid e r at io n t he bac kg r o und and hist o r y o f e ac h ind iv id ual c l ie nt , and ul t imat e l y d e c id ing t he be st c o ur se o f ac t io n t o t ake in e ac h c ase . This is c l e ar l y a d isc r e t io nar y t ask. The anal ysis is no t as bl ac k and whit e as Appe l l ant ar g ue s; it is no t a minist e r ial t ask t o simpl y ad v ise c o r r e c t l y. The l aw is a f ie l d o f g r ay in a wo r l d o f bl ac k and whit e ; as l awye r s, we ar e c o nsist e nt l y t aug ht t hat t he answe r “d e pe nd s ” upo n nume r o us f ac t o r s. What is r ig ht in e ac h sit uat io n may c hang e wit h t he sl ig ht e st f l uc t uat io n in t he f ac t s pr e se nt e d t o t he at t o r ne y. We c anno t say t hat t his is a minist e r ial t ask. We ar e no t 23 saying t hat t he t ask f ac ing a publ ic d e f e nd e r wil l always be d isc r e t io nar y; t he se issue s, l ike t he l aw, ar e no t so bl ac k and whit e o r br ig ht -l ine . But , in t his c ase , in ad v ising a c l ie nt , t he publ ic d e f e nd e r he r e was pe r f o r ming a d isc r e t io nar y t ask. As suc h, Ho l be r t was e nt it l e d t o asse r t qual if ie d immunit y as a d e f e nse t o Jac o bi’s l e g al mal pr ac t ic e c l aim. Jac o bi d id no t al l e g e t hat Ho l be r t ac t e d in bad f ait h o r o ut sid e t he sc o pe o f his e mpl o yme nt . We t he r e f o r e af f ir m t he ho l d ing s o f bo t h t he Har d in Cir c uit Co ur t and t he Co ur t o f Appe al s in d ismissing Jac o bi’s ac t io n o n t he basis o f immunit y. F. THIS DECISION DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AND DISCRIMINATORILY IMPACT THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS At o r al ar g ume nt . Appe l l ant se e me d t o ar g ue t hat al l o wing publ ic d e f e nd e r s t o asse r t immunit y wo ul d l e av e ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s as t he o nl y g r o up unabl e t o sue t he ir at t o r ne ys f o r mal pr ac t ic e . This br o ad st at e me nt is inac c ur at e and misl e ad ing . The Ge ne r al Asse mbl y has mad e a l imit e d waiv e r o f immunit y f o r ne g l ig e nc e c l aims sust aine d d ue t o t he ac t io ns o f ag e nc y e mpl o ye e s, st e mming f r o m minist e r ial ac t io ns. See KRS 49.020(1) and KRS 49.060. By st at ut e , t he Ke nt uc ky Cl aims Co mmissio n (c o mmo nl y r e f e r r e d t o as t he “Bo ar d o f Cl aims ”) is aut ho r ize d t o he ar t he se c l aims o f ne g l ig e nc e . Jac o bi has al l e g e d ne g l ig e nc e o n t he par t o f his c o unse l , Ho l be r t , a st at e ag e nc y e mpl o ye e . Our r e c o g nit io n o f Ho l be r t ’s qual if ie d immunit y d o e s no t f o r e c l o se al l po t e nt ial r e me d ie s f o r Jac o bi; inst e ad , it me r e l y r e c o g nize s t hat t he pr o pe r av e nue f o r r e c o v e r y o f ne g l ig e nc e ag ainst publ ic e mpl o ye e s is by st at ut e and t hr o ug h t he Cl aims Co mmissio n. This is a r at io nal l imit at io n o f l iabil it y f o r ag e nc y e mpl o ye e s and d o e s no t f o r e c l o se al l pat hs t o r e c o v e r y f o r ind ig e nt 24 d e f e nd ant s. We make no f ind ing as t o t he po t e nt ial l iabil it y o f al l publ ic d e f e nd e r s in ne g l ig e nc e ac t io ns; he r e , t he spe c if ic al l e g at io ns d e al wit h t he l e g al c o unse l pr o v id e d t o Jac o bi and inv o l v e d isc r e t io naiy ac t s. Ho we v e r , t hat d o e s no t me an t hat e v e r y ac t io n ag ainst a publ ic d e f e nd e r wo ul d pr e se nt t he same se t o f f ac t s and l e g al issue s. Thus, t his r e c o g nit io n o f immunit y d o e s no t d isc r iminat o r il y impac t t he r ig ht s o f ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. IV. CONCLUSION / Publ ic d e f e nd e r s ar e int e g r al ac t o r s wit hin t he Co mmo nwe al t h ’s just ic e syst e m. The DPA is a st at e ag e nc y t hat , t hr o ug h t he e mpl o y o f publ ic d e f e nd e r s, c ar r ie s o ut an int e g r al and e sse nt ial g o v e r nme nt al f unc t io n: pr o t e c t ing t he l e g al r ig ht s o f ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant s. As suc h, publ ic d e f e nd e r s pe r f o r ming d isc r e t io nar y t asks in g o o d f ait h and wit hin t he sc o pe o f t he ir e mpl o yme nt ar e e nt it l e d t o asse r t qual if ie d immunit y t o any ne g l ig e nc e c l aim. Jac o bi d id no t al l e g e t hat Ho l be r t ac t e d in bad f ait h o r o ut sid e t he sc o pe o f e mpl o yme nt . The r e f o r e , Ho l be r t , in g iv ing l e g al ad v ic e t o an ind ig e nt d e f e nd ant , was pe r f o r ming a d isc r e t io nar y t ask whil e e mpl o ye d by a st at e ag e nc y. He is e nt it l e d t o t he d e f e nse o f qual if ie d immunit y. We t he r e f o r e af f ir m t he Har d in Cir c uit Co ur t and t he Co ur t o f Appe al s in d ismissing Jac o bi’s c l aims. Al l sit t ing . Al l c o nc ur . 25 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Hans Ge o r g e Po ppe , Jr . Sc ar l e t t e Bur t o n Ke l t y El l e n Co f f e y Kir k A. Laug hl in The Po ppe Law Fir m COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Ro be r t K. Bo nd Br and o n Lal l y Co l e man Lo c hmil l e r 86 Bo nd COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY: Br ian Sc o t t We st De par t me nt o f Publ ic Ad v o c ac y 26