U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

September 2010, NCJ 231175

Highlights

Special Report

Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007

County-based and Local Public Defender 

Offices, 2007

Donald J. Farole, Jr., Ph.D., and

Lynn Langton

BJS Statisticians

In 2007, 49 states and the District of Columbia had

public defender offices to provide legal

representation for some or all indigent defendants.

In 27 states and the District of Columbia, counties

or local jurisdictions funded and administered

public defender offices. In the remaining 22 states,

one office oversaw indigent defense operations

throughout the state (figure 1).

Public defender offices administered at the local

level and funded principally by the county or

through a combination of county and state funds

are referred to as county-based offices. Although

the public defender office in the District of

Columbia was entirely federally funded, it operates

like a county-based office and was classified as such.

Figure 1. 

Counties or local jurisdictions funded and administered public defender 

offices in 27 states and the District of Columbia in 2007

$PVOUZCBTFEPîDFT

/PQVCMJDEFGFOEFST

4UBUFCBTFEQSPHSBN

0SHBOJ[BUJPOBMTUSVDUVSFPGQVCMJDEFGFOEFSPîDFT

• County-based public defender offices received more than 

4 million cases and spent nearly $1.5 billion in operating 

expenditures in 2007. 

• Offices providing county-based public defender services in 25 

states with death penalty statutes spent a combined total of 

nearly $30 million for capital case representation in 2007. 

• Misdemeanors and ordinance violations accounted for the largest share (56%) of cases received by county-based public 

defender offices.

• About three-quarters (73%) of county-based public defender 

offices exceeded the maximum recommended limit of cases 

received per attorney in 2007.

• County-based offices employed a median of 7 litigating public 

defenders.

• In 2007, 40% of all county-based public defender offices had no 

investigators on staff.

• The attrition rate of attorneys in county-based offices was less 

than 1% in 2007.
2 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

Professional guidelines for the provision of indigent defense

County-based and Local Public Defender Offices,

2007 presents the Bureau of Justice Statistics’

(BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices

(CPDO) data in the context of applicable

professional guidelines for representing indigent

clients. The American Bar Association (ABA), the

National Legal Aid and Defender Association

(NLADA), and special commissions, such as the

National Study Commission on Defense Services

(1976) and the President’s National Advisory

Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and

Goals (1973), have released professional

guidelines for the provision of indigent defense.

In 2002 the ABA condensed these guidelines into

the ABA’s Ten Principles of a Public Defense

Delivery System. The ten principles are widely

regarded as a succinct statement of the currently

accepted requirements for adequate defense

representation and are referenced throughout the

report. The report also references professional

guidelines from the American Bar Association

Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense

Services (3rd ed. 1992) and the National Legal Aid

and Defender Association, Performance

Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation

(1995). 

Ten Principles

1. The public defense function, including the

selection, funding, and payment of defense

counsel, is independent.

2. Where the caseload is sufficiently high, the

public defense delivery system consists of both a

defender office and the active participation of the

private bar.

3. Clients are screened for eligibility, and defense

counsel is assigned and notified of appointment,

as soon as feasible after clients’ arrest, detention,

or request for counsel.

4. Defense counsel is provided sufficient time and

a confidential space within which to meet with

the client.

5. Defense counsel’s workload is controlled to

permit the rendering of quality representation.

6. Defense counsel’s ability, training, and

experience match the complexity of the case.

7. The same attorney continuously represents the

client until completion of the case.

8. There is parity between defense counsel and

the prosecution with respect to resources, and

defense counsel is included as an equal partner in

the justice system.

9. Defense counsel is provided with and required

to attend continuing legal education.

10. Defense counsel is supervised and

systematically reviewed for quality and efficiency

according to nationally and locally adopted

standards.

Other professional guidelines

National Advisory Commission on Criminal

Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on

Courts, Chapter 13: The Defense (1973).

National Study Commission on Defense Services,

Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United

States (1976). 

American Bar Association Standards for

Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services (3rd

ed. 1992). 

National Legal Aid and Defender Association,

Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense

Representation (1995).
September 2010 3

County-based public defender offices employed

71% of the nation’s 15,026 public defenders in 2007

(table 1). The 10,705 attorneys in county-based

offices served a total population of approximately

167 million residents. These attorneys handled

more than 4 million cases in 2007, which was 73%

of the total number of public defender cases

nationwide. 

In 1963 the United States Supreme Court ruled in

Gideon v. Wainwright that state courts are required

to ensure that the provisions of the right to counsel

under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments apply

to indigent defendants. Since the Gideon ruling,

states, counties, and jurisdictions have established

varying means of providing public representation

for defendants unable to afford a private attorney.

Indigent defense systems typically provide

representation through some combination of three

methods:

1. A public defender office.

2. An assigned counsel system in which the 

court schedules cases for participating private 

attorneys.

3. A contract system in which private attorneys 

contractually agree to take on a specified number 

of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2007 Census

of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data

on public defender offices, one of three methods

used to deliver indigent defense services. Public

defender offices had a salaried staff of full or parttime attorneys who were employed either by the

government or by a public, nonprofit organization,

to represent indigent defendants. 

The CPDO collected data on the staffing, caseloads,

expenditures, standards and guidelines, and

attorney training from the approximately 1,000

public defender offices in 49 states and the District

of Columbia in 2007. Maine had no public defender

offices in 2007. The CPDO was the first systematic,

national study of public defender offices. Public

defender offices employed over 15,000 litigating

attorneys in 957 offices nationwide, received

approximately 5.6 million indigent defense cases,

and spent about $2.3 billion representing indigent

defendants in 2007. 

This report presents data on the policies and

operations of the 530 county-based public defender

offices operating in 27 states and the District of

Columbia. It examines office expenditures,

caseloads, staffing, and policies and procedures, by

public defender office case volume, as measured by

the number of cases received per office in 2007.

CPDO findings based on state-based public

defender programs are discussed in the BJS report,

State Public Defender Programs, 2007, BJS Web,

September 2010.

Table 1. 

Characteristics of public defender offices, by type of office, 2007

Type of offices Number of statesa

Population served 

(in thousands)b Number of officesc

Number of cases 

receivedd

FTE litigating 

attorneyse

Total expenditures 

(in thousands)

U.S. total 50 240,160 957 5,572,450 15,026 $2,310,040

State-based 22 73,370 427 1,491,420 4,321 833,358

County-based 28 166,790 530 4,081,030 10,705 1,476,682

a

Includes the District of Columbia, which is classified as county-based public defender office due to its unique status outside of 

any state's jurisdiction. In 2007 Maine did not have city, county, or state public defender offices.

bIncludes the population served only in those jurisdictions that had a public defender office in 2007.

c

Excludes public defender offices that are privately funded or principally funded by federal or tribal governments and those that 

provide primarily conflict of interest representation, or felony capital, juvenile, or appellate cases services. Also excludes all other 

providers of indigent services, including attorneys or offices providing contract or assigned council services on an individual or 

case basis.

dAlaska's state-based public defender program did not report caseload data. Caseload data were available for 97.4% of all countybased offices.

e

See Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorney.
4 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

Table 3. 

Authorities appointing county-based public defender office advisory boards or commissions, and authority exercised by boards, by 

office caseload, 2007

Offices with an advisory board Advisory board appointment Advisory board authority

Office caseload Number Percent Governor

Supreme 

Court Legislature

County 

commission Othera

Hire or remove 

chief public 

defender

Rulemaking Budgetary Otherb

All offices 189 36% 36% 15% 20% 44% 65% 83% 68% 67% 16%

Less than 1,000 

cases received 30 22 35 7 14 52 59 83 80 77 17

1,000-2,500 54 44 39 13 17 56 57 83 69 72 11

2,501-5,000 45 44 41 11 21 48 64 91 51 49 16

More than 5,000 55 36 29 22 26 31 73 78 71 67 24

Note: Details do not sum to 100% because multiple agencies may be involved in appointing the advisory board, and the advisory board may have multiple areas 

of authority. Caseload data unavailable for five offices with an advisory board.

a

Includes statutorily determined appointing bodies, state bar association, and state law school ex officio deans.

bIncludes general supervision of operations, recommendations regarding per case fees, approval of district public defenders and deputy chief public defender 

selections, approval of union contracts and employee salaries, and authority to contract for indigent defense services. 

County-based offices handled a median of 

about 2,500 cases with a median operating 

expenditure of $708,000 in 2007

The 27 states and the District of Columbia with

county-based public defender offices operated a

total of 530 offices in 2007 (table 2). The District of

Columbia had one office in 2007, while Illinois had

70 offices, the most county-based offices among the

27 states. 

County-based public defender offices served a

median population of about 117,000 residents with

a median operating budget of about $708,000 in

2007. County-based offices received a median of

nearly 2,500 cases and employed a median of 7

litigating attorneys. The 154 offices with the highest

caseloads (more than 5,000 cases) in 2007 served a

median population of approximately 430,000

residents, received a median of approximately

10,100 cases, and employed a median of 28

litigating attorneys per office. 

One in 3 county-based public defender offices 

had an advisory board or commission

About 1 in 3 (36%) county-based public defender

offices had an advisory board or commission in

2007 (table 3). Of the 189 county-based offices with

an advisory board or commission, a county

commission was either the sole appointing entity or

one of multiple appointing entities for 44% of these

offices. The state governor was an appointing

authority for 36% of offices, and the state legislature

was the appointing authority for 20%. A county

commission was less likely to be an appointing

authority for offices with larger caseloads than for

those with smaller caseloads. Conversely, a state

supreme court was less likely to be an appointing

authority in offices with smaller caseloads than

those with higher caseloads. 

In about 4 in 5 (83%) county-based offices with an

advisory board or commission, the board had

authority to hire or remove chief public defenders.

In two-thirds of the offices, the advisory board had

rule-making authority (68%) and the ability to

make budgetary decisions (67%).

Table 2. 

General characteristics of county-based public defender offices, by office caseload, 2007

Office caseload Number of offices

Median population 

served

Median number of 

cases received

Median FTE litigating 

attorneysa

Median total office 

expendituresb

All offices 530 116,810 2,482 7 $707,510

Less than 1,000 cases received 136 27,789 429 2 133,771

1,000-2,500 123 69,973 1,553 5 553,791

2,501-5,000 103 144,466 3,595 9 1,000,000

More than 5,000 154 430,317 10,093 28 3,000,000

Note: Details do not sum to total due to missing data on public defender office caseload. Population data were available for 99.2%, caseload data were available for 97.4%, 

FTE litigating attorney data were available for 99.2%, and expenditure data were available for 97.2% of all county-based offices.

a

See Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorney.

bThe Census of Public Defender Offices, 2007 instructed respondents to report either fiscal or calendar year 2007 total public defender office expenditures for indigent 

defense functions, excluding any fixed capital costs. 

The public defense 

function should be 

independent of undue 

political influence. To 

safeguard independence 

and promote efficiency 

and quality of services, a 

nonpartisan board 

should oversee defender 

systems.
September 2010 5

Four in 5 county-based public defender 

offices followed specific criteria or written 

guidelines to determine indigency

In 2007, 83% of county-based public defender

offices reported using formal criteria to determine

if a defendant qualified as indigent and was eligible

for public representation (table 4). Nearly all (98%)

offices with formal criteria used a defendant’s

income level as a criterion. The majority of countybased public defender offices used a sworn

application (79%) or the judge’s discretion (67%) as

criteria. Less than half (41%) of county-based

offices used an unsworn application, and about 1 in

3 (34%) offices used the defendant’s ability to post

bail or bond as a criterion to determine indigency. 

Judges (52%) and public defenders (47%) were the

most common entities responsible for screening

potential clients for indigency in jurisdictions

served by county-based public defender offices.

Pretrial services or probation officers were involved

in the screening process in 4% of these jurisdictions

(not shown in a table).

The majority of county-based public defender 

offices used a court-administered assigned 

counsel program for conflict cases

Public defender offices had various procedures to

handle cases in which there was a conflict of

interest, such as a co-defendant already handled by

the defender office. The majority (52%) of countybased public defender offices reported handling

conflict cases through a court administered

assigned counsel program; about a quarter (23%) of

offices handled conflict cases through previously

established contracts with private attorneys (figure

2). Less than 1 in 10 (7%) county-based public

defender offices used an ethical screen, whereby an

Figure 2. 

Types of conflict attorney systems in county-based public defender offices, 2007

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Assigned counsel program administered through the court

Previously established contract with private attorney

Case-by-case contract with private attorney

State conflict public defender office

Jurisdictional conflict public defender office

In house/ethical screen

Percent of offices

Method for obtaining a conflict attorney

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because some offices obtained conflict attorneys through multiple methods.

% % % % % %

4%

7%

12%

13%

16%

52%

23%

Assigned counsel program administered

through the public defender office

%

Table 4. 

Criteria used to determine whether a defendant qualified for public counsel representation in county-based public defender offices, by 

office caseload, 2007

Offices with formal criteria Criteria used to determine indigency

Office caseload Number Percent 

Income 

level

Sworn 

application 

Judge's 

discretion

Residence in 

public institutiona Debt level

Receipt 

of public 

assistance

Federal 

poverty 

guidelines

Unsworn 

application

Ability to 

post bail 

or bond Otherb

All offices 439 83% 98% 79% 67% 66% 66% 62% 62% 41% 34% 16%

Less than 1,000 

cases received 112 82 98 82 78 64 65 45 49 37 28 20

1,000-2,500 113 92 98 81 63 74 63 68 69 36 33 17

2,501-5,000 88 85 97 73 64 59 55 63 65 42 32 14

More than 5,000 115 75 98 78 64 66 80 72 67 48 38 15

Note: Details do not sum to total due to missing data on public defender office caseload.

a

Includes residence in a public mental health institution or a correctional institution.

bIncludes family status, number of dependants, monthly expenses, worker's compensation or disability, bankruptcy, liquid assets, letters from employers, and judicial discretion.

The defender office 

should screen clients for 

eligibility, with eligibility 

decisions then subject to 

review by the court. The 

determination of 

eligibility should be based 

on the liquid assets of the 

defendant, as well as the 

defendant’s own 

assessment of his or her 

ability to obtain sufficient 

representation. The office 

should not base indigency 

determinations on 

whether the defendant 

was able to post bond 

following his or her arrest.
6 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

office would take a case regardless of the conflict

but preclude an attorney with conflicting

connections from involvement in the case.

Most county-based offices required the same 

attorney to represent clients throughout all 

stages of the case proceedings 

Vertical representation refers to the practice of one

attorney representing a client from arraignment

through the duration of the case. It is distinguished

from horizontal representation in which a different

attorney represents the same client at various stages

of the case. Sixty percent of county-based public

defender offices had a written policy requiring

vertical representation of indigent cases (table 5). 

About 7 in 10 (71%) offices reported providing

primarily vertical representation in felony, noncapital cases (these offices may or may not have had

written policies requiring vertical representation),

compared to 13% of offices that handled conflict

cases through a combination of vertical and

horizontal representation. Public defender offices

with smaller caseloads were more likely than those

with higher caseloads to provide vertical

representation. 

The majority of county-based public defender

offices had formal policies that required the most

experienced attorneys to handle the most complex

cases (58%) and about a quarter (28%) required that

an attorney be appointed to the case within 24

hours of client detention. Offices with lower

caseloads were less likely to have these policies in

place than offices with higher caseloads. 

More than 4 in 5 county-based public 

defender offices charged fees for defense 

services

Eighty-two percent of county-based public

defender offices allowed for some form of cost

recoupment for public defender services in 2007

(table 6). Among the offices that permitted cost

recoupment, the most widely available fee was a

charge based on the cost for the defender’s services

(69% of offices). A majority of offices also allowed

recoupment of court-related expenses (63%) and

standard statutory fees (53%). More than 2 in 5

(44%) offices charged an up-front application or

administrative fee, which typically ranged from $10

to $200 depending on the state and the type of

case.1 The least commonly available fee was for

expert witness expenses (15%) in 2007. 

County-based public defender offices 

received more than 4,000,000 cases in 2007

County-based public defender offices received

4,081,030 cases in 2007, with a median of about

2,500 cases per office (table 7). The office with the

highest case volume reported receiving 354,000

cases; the office with the lowest case volume

reported receiving no cases in 2007 (not shown in a

table). Misdemeanors and ordinance violations

accounted for the majority (56%) of cases received

in county-based public defender offices. Countybased public defender offices received a median of

1,013 misdemeanor and ordinance violation, 853

felony non-capital, 150 juvenile-related, 15 civil,

and 2 appeals cases in 2007.2

1

American Bar Association. (December 2001). 2001 Public 

Defender Up-front Application Fees Update. <http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/indigentdefense/

pdapplicationfees2001-table.pdf>. 

2

The CPDO did not collect data from public defender offices 

providing primarily juvenile or appellate case representation.

Table 5. 

Operating guidelines and representation practices used by county-based public defender offices, by office caseload, 2007

Operating guidelines included a policy related to— Representation provided in felony, non-capital cases—*

Office caseload

Attorney representation of client 

through all stages 

of proceedings

Matching attorney 

experience with 

case complexity

Matching attorney 

experience with 

types of cases 

handled

Attorney appointment within 24 

hours of client 

detention Vertical Horizontal

Combination 

of vertical and 

horizontal

One attorney through 

arraignment, one 

for the duration of 

the case

All offices 60% 58% 51% 28% 71% 4% 13% 12%

Less than 1,000 cases 

received 54 29 28 16 89 2 5 4

1,000-2,500 60 55 49 22 72 4 18 6

2,501-5,000 58 68 56 29 67 5 9 19

More than 5,000 65 79 70 40 56 5 19 20

*Seven offices did not provide representation in non-capital felony cases and are excluded.

The same attorney should 

represent a client through 

all stages of case 

proceedings.

Public defender programs 

can charge fees to 

indigent defendants 

under circumstances in 

which the defendant’s 

contribution would not 

impose significant 

financial hardship.
September 2010 7

Misdemeanor and ordinance violations made up a

greater share of cases received in offices with higher

caseloads than in offices with lower caseloads.

These cases made up a median of 59% of the overall

caseload in offices receiving 5,000 cases or more

and a median of 45% of the overall caseload in

offices receiving fewer than 1,000 cases (not shown

in a table).

The 530 county-based public defender offices

received a total of 1,210 felony capital cases in 2007.

Nearly all (1,086) felony capital cases were received

in the 153 highest-caseload offices. Seven in 10

(70%) offices in states that had death penalty

statutes in 2007 reported receiving no felony capital

cases in that year. 

 The CPDO did not collect data on the total number

of indigent defense cases received by all indigent

defense providers within a jurisdiction. Thus, the

extent to which variations in the numbers and types

of cases received were due to differences in the

operation of all methods of indigent defense is

unknown.

Table 7. 

Number of cases received by county-based public defender offices, by office caseload and case type, 2007

Office caseload Total Felony capitala Felony non-capital

Misdemeanor/

violationb Juvenile-relatedc Civild Appeals

Total caseload

All offices 4,081,030 1,210 1,231,435 2,273,771 375,175 160,375 20,183

Less than 1,000 cases received 62,582 19 20,674 31,059 6,363 3,299 668

1,000-2,500 200,396 45 78,101 87,062 18,706 10,956 1,252

2,501-5,000 374,617 60 143,451 168,608 37,937 16,237 1,402

More than 5,000 3,443,435 1,086 989,209 1,987,042 312,169 129,883 16,861

Median caseload per office

All offices 2,482 0 853 1,013 150 15 2

Less than 1,000 cases received 429 0 110 193 40 4 0

1,000-2,500 1,553 0 550 689 137 17 3

2,501-5,000 3,595 0 1,200 1,800 249 1 5

More than 5,000 10,093 1 3,500 6,000 992 300 10

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to missing data on public defender office caseloads. Includes cases that were assigned to and accepted for representation by the 

public defender office.

a

The District of Columbia, Michigan, and West Virginia did not have death penalty statutes in 2007. Offices in these jurisdictions were excluded from the calculation of 

median felony capital caseload per office.

bIncludes misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence and ordinance or municipal infractions or violations.

c

Includes juvenile delinquency, delinquency appeals, and transfer or waiver of hearing cases.

dIncludes mental commitment, state post-conviction or habeas corpus, federal habeas corpus, status offense, child protection or dependency, termination of parental 

rights, or sexually violent predator cases.

Table 6. 

Types of cost recoupment that could be required for public defender representation in county-based public defender offices, 

by office caseload, 2007

Offices allowing recoupment Cost recoupment that may have been required—

Office caseload Number Percent Attorney cost

Court-related 

expenses

Standard 

statutory fee

Application or 

administrative fee Facilities fee

Expert 

witness fee Other*

All offices 432 82% 69% 63% 53% 44% 42% 15% 22%

Less than 1,000 cases 

received 101 74 73 58 44 22 35 14 25

1,000-2,500 102 83 60 62 48 41 33 17 19

2,501-5,000 83 81 68 63 52 57 45 12 24

More than 5,000 134 87 74 68 64 55 50 16 23

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because offices may require indigent defendants to pay more than one fee.

*Includes standard fees set by a commission or administrative rule and court reporter or investigator fees.
8 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

Less than half of county-based public 

defender offices reported caseload limits or 

the ability to refuse appointments due to 

caseload

In 2007, 15% of county-based public defender

offices had formal caseload limits, and 36% had the

authority to refuse appointments due to excessive

caseloads (table 9). About 6 in 10 (59%) offices

reported having neither caseload limits nor the

authority to refuse cases. About half (49%) of offices

that received more than 5,000 cases reported having

the authority to refuse appointments due to excess

caseload, compared to 28% of offices that received

fewer than 1,000 cases in 2007. 

More than 7 in 10 county-based offices had an 

insufficient number of attorneys to meet the 

professional guidelines

County-based public defender offices received a

median of 853 felony non-capital cases and 1,000

misdemeanor cases, and employed a median of 7

full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating public

defenders per office in 2007 (table 10). The median

number of litigating attorneys was 14 times greater

in the highest caseload offices (28) than in offices

having the smallest caseloads (2).

The National Advisory Commission (NAC)

guidelines recommend a caseload for each public

defender's office, not necessarily each attorney in

the office. They state that “the caseload of a public

defender office should not exceed the following:

felonies per attorney per year: not more than 150;

misdemeanors (excluding traffic) per attorney per

year: not more than 400; juvenile court cases per

attorney per year: not more than 200; Mental

Health Act cases per attorney per year: not more

than 200; and appeals per attorney per year: not

more than 25.”3 While ‘caseload’ can apply to the

number of cases per attorney at a given time, BJS

interprets the NAC standard as applicable to the

sum of cases attorneys in an office are responsible

for in a given year. Because the CPDO only

collected data on cases received in 2007, these

caseload numbers may understate the actual

caseload of attorneys who are responsible not only

for the new cases received in a given year but also

cases pending from previous years.

One way to examine the numeric caseload guideline

is to assess the number of cases received per FTE

litigating attorney. Since the CPDO did not collect

County-based public defender offices spent nearly $30 million providing capital case defense 

in 2007 

In 2007, 25 of the 27 states with county-based public defender

offices had death penalty statutes. (The District of Columbia,

Michigan, and West Virginia did not have the death penalty in

2007.) Public defender offices in states with a death penalty

statute received more than 1,200 death penalty eligible cases,

spending nearly $30 million to provide capital case

representation (table 8). Offices with a caseload of more than

5,000 cases in 2007 received 90% of the death penalty eligible

cases during the year. Public defender offices represented 932

indigent defendants in cases in which the prosecutor filed for

the death penalty. 

About 1 in 4 county-based public defender offices in states with

death penalty statutes had a specialized death penalty unit to

provide legal representation for trial-level capital cases. Less

than 1 in 10 offices had specialized units to provide

representation for direct appeals or post-conviction capital

cases. 

Table 8. 

Capital case representation among offices in states with death penalty statutes, by office caseload, 2007

Death penalty eligible cases

Number of death 

penalty casesb

Percent of offices that have a specialized death 

penalty unit providing representation for —

Office caseload

Representation 

expendituresa

Cases 

received

Trial level

cases

Direct 

appeals Post-conviction cases

All offices $29,751,000 1,210 932 22% 8% 7%

Less than 1,000 cases received 203,000 19 9 7 2 3

1,000-2,500 583,000 45 38 18 7 8

2,501-5,000 2,229,000 60 61 19 10 7

More than 5,000 26,736,000 1,086 812 41 14 8

Note: The District of Columbia, Michigan, and West Virginia did not have death penalty statutes in 2007. Offices in these jurisdictions were excluded.

a

Rounded to nearest thousand dollars.

b

Death penalty eligible cases in which the prosecutor filed for the death penalty, potentially including cases that were received prior to 2007.

The defense counsel’s 

workload should be 

sufficiently controlled to 

allow defenders the time 

needed to provide quality 

representation in each 

case. Furthermore, public 

defenders are expected to 

decline appointments 

that exceed the established caseload limits.

The 1973 U.S. 

Department of Justice’s 

National Advisory 

Commission (NAC) on 

Criminal Justice 

Standards and Goals 

recommended the following maximum annual 

caseloads for a public 

defender office: on 

average, defenders in these 

offices should not exceed, 

per year, 150 felony, 400 

misdemeanor, 200 

juvenile, 200 mental 

health cases, or 25 appeals.

3

Department of Justice, National Advisory Commission on 

Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 

Courts § 13.12 (1973).
September 2010 9

data on the caseloads of individual attorneys, it was

assumed for estimation purposes that the felony

and misdemeanor cases received in 2007 were

equally distributed among FTE litigating attorneys.

Using this estimation method, a public defender

office would meet the guideline for cases received in

2007 if the FTE litigating attorneys received no

more than 75 felony non-capital and 200

misdemeanor cases.4

This conservative measure also assumes that

attorneys did not have any cases pending from

previous years and did not handle any other type of

case. Still, 36% of county-based public defender

offices met the guideline for felony non-capital

cases per attorney, and 66% met the guideline for

the number of misdemeanor cases per attorney.

Offices with larger overall caseloads were more

likely than those with smaller caseloads to exceed

the maximum recommended limit for both felony

and misdemeanor cases. About 4 in 5 offices that

Table 9. 

Caseload limits and the authority to refuse appointments due to caseload in county-based public defender 

offices, by office caseload, 2007

Percent of offices with—

Office caseload

Caseload 

limits

Authority to refuse appointments 

due to caseload

Either caseload limits or authority to 

refuse appointments due to caseload

All offices 15% 36% 41%

Less than 1,000 cases received 12 28 31

1,000-2,500 14 27 32

2,501-5,000 16 40 44

More than 5,000 20 49 57

Table 10. 

Professional guidelines related to attorney caseloads in county-based public defender offices, by office caseload, 2007

Cases received in 2007a

Felony non-capital Misdemeanor

Office caseload

Number of 

offices

Median FTE 

litigating 

attorneysb

Median 

number of 

cases

Median number 

of cases per FTE 

litigating attorney

Percent of offices 

with at least one 

attorney per 75 

cases receivedc

Median 

number of 

cases

Median number 

of cases per FTE 

litigating attorney

Percent of offices 

with at least one 

attorney per 200 

cases receivedc

All offices 527 7 853 100 36% 1,000 146 66%

Less than 1,000 cases received 136 2 110 50 69 183 100 87

1,000-2,500 123 5 550 110 33 651 136 73

2,501-5,000 102 9 1,200 140 17 1,650 170 58

More than 5,000 154 28 3,500 126 22 5,302 208 48

Note: Details do not sum to total due to missing data on public defender office caseload.

a

Refers to cases appointed to and accepted for representation by the public defender office.

bSee Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorney.

c

1973 U.S. Department of Justice's National Advisory Committee (NAC) on Criminal Standards and Goals suggest that public defenders carrying both felony and misdemeanor cases should carry no more than 75 felony or 200 misdemeanor cases per year.

4

The NAC guideline frames caseloads as though an attorney 

handles only one type of case. The misdemeanor and felony 

caseload guidelines were halved to follow the analytic assumption that attorneys handle both types of cases. 
10 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

received more than 2,500 cases in 2007 failed to

meet the national guideline of felony non-capital

cases per attorney.

Another way to examine caseloads is to calculate

the number of defenders needed to meet the

nationally accepted caseload guideline of 150 felony

non-capital cases, 400 misdemeanor cases, 200

juvenile cases, or 25 appellate cases per defender

each year. To calculate the total number of attorneys

needed in each office, analysts first computed the

number of attorneys needed to handle the cases

received in each of the four case categories: felony

non-capital, misdemeanor, juvenile-related, and

appellate. The numbers of attorneys needed for

each case type were then summed to get the total

number of litigating attorneys recommended by the

caseload guideline.

To meet this guideline in 2007, the median office

would have needed 11 attorneys who only handled

the median number of felony, misdemeanor,

juvenile-related, or appellate cases reported (not

shown in table). The median office reported

employing 7 FTE litigating attorneys, approximately

64% of the estimated number needed.

Twenty-seven percent of county-based public

defender offices reported sufficient numbers of

litigating attorneys to handle the cases received in

those offices in 2007 (figure 3). About a quarter

(23%) of all offices reported less than half of the

number of litigating attorneys required to meet the

professional guidelines for the number of cases

received in 2007 (not shown in a table).

Three in 5 (60%) offices that received fewer than

1,000 cases in 2007 reported employing a sufficient

number of attorneys to meet the caseload guideline.

Among offices with an overall caseload of more

than 5,000 cases, 88% reported an insufficient

number of attorneys to meet the professional

guideline.

Four in 5 (84%) county-based public defender 

offices met the professional guideline of 1 

managerial attorney per 10 staff attorneys

County-based public defender offices employed a

total of 490 chief public defenders, 185 managing

attorneys, and 958 supervisory attorneys in 2007

(table 11). These offices also employed a total of

8,595 full-time assistant public defenders and 1,053

part-time defenders. 

The 273 county-based offices with 5 or more

litigating attorneys reported a median of 1.7

managerial attorneys for every 10 assistant public

defenders (not shown in a table).5 Sixteen percent

of these offices had less than 1 managerial attorney

for every 10 staff attorneys. In offices that received

more than 5,000 cases in 2007, 1 in 5 (20%) did not

meet this guideline. 

5

Since the professional guideline recommends 1 managerial 

attorney for every 10 staff attorneys, the guideline is inapplicable 

to offices with fewer than 5 FTE assistant public defenders. The 

guideline applies to offices with at least 5 and less than 10 FTE 

assistant public defenders, since these offices may employ parttime managerial attorneys.

Figure 3. 

Percent of county-based public defender offices 

reporting sufficient number of FTE litigating 

attorneys required to meet caseload guidelines, 

2007

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Less than

1,000

1,000-2,500 2,501-5,000 More than

5,000

Percent of offices

Number of cases received

All offices

27%

23%

16%

12%

60%

There should be 1 

managerial attorney 

for every 10 staff 

attorneys in an office to 

ensure effective 

attorney supervision.
September 2010 11

County-based public defender offices 

employed 7,500 support staff in addition to 

attorneys in 2007

County-based public defender offices in 27 states

and the District of Columbia employed 7,514

support staff in 2007 (table 12). Support staff refers

to employees, such as clerical and administrative

staff, paralegals, investigators, social workers,

indigency screeners, and interns, who are not

typically attorneys, but who provide case assistance

for public defenders. About half (46%) of these

support staff were in clerical or administrative

positions. County-based public defender offices

employed about 1,500 investigators and 800

paralegals. 

About three-quarters (5,696 of 7,514) of all support

staff were employed in the 153 high caseload offices

which received more than 5,000 cases in 2007.

These offices employed 95% of all training staff,

85% of all social workers, and 81% of all

investigators. Collectively, the 136 offices that

received fewer than 1,000 cases employed a total of

one social worker, one indigency screener, and no

training staff in 2007. 

Table 11. 

Full and part-time public defenders employed by county-based public defender offices, by office caseload and 

position title, 2007

Total number of full-time attorneys Percent of offices with 1 or 

more managerial attorneys 

per 10 FTE assistant public 

Office caseload defenders*

Total full-time 

attorneys

Chief public 

defenders

Managing 

attorneys

Supervisory 

attorneys 

Assistant public defendersTotal part-time 

attorneys

All offices 10,228 490 185 958 8,595 1,053 84%

Less than 1,000 cases received 239 108 0 4 127 179 86

1,000-2,500 488 96 1 34 357 275 88

2,501-5,000 1,033 89 11 123 810 248 92

More than 5,000 8,152 185 168 773 7,026 346 80

Note: Details do not sum to total due to missing data on public defender office caseload. See Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE).

*FTE managerial attorney refers to all full and part-time attorneys in a supervisory position, including chief public defenders, supervisory attorneys, and managing 

attorneys. Includes only the 273 offices with 5 or more FTE litigating attorneys. 

Table 12. 

Full and part-time support staff employed by county-based public defender offices, by office caseload and position title, 2007

Median FTE 

support staff 

per officea

Total FTE support staffa

Office caseload

Number 

of offices

All 

support 

staff Investigators

Social 

workers

Indigency 

screeners Paralegals Administrative Clerical Training Interns Otherb

All offices 526 4 7,514 1,529 367 88 779 2,419 1,056 41 644 592

Less than 1,000 cases 

received 136 1 221 17 1 1 57 112 17 0 11 7

1,000-2,500 123 3 478 90 4 7 52 222 65 0 30 9

2,501-5,000 102 5 864 161 27 29 64 305 131 1 108 39

More than 5,000 153 19 5,696 1,233 313 51 600 1,612 824 39 488 538

Note: Details do not sum to total due to missing data on public defender office caseload.

a

See Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE).

bIncludes human resources staff, forensic specialists, clinical psychologists, information technology (IT) specialists, interpreters, and investigators hired on a 

contractual basis.
12 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

Four in 10 county-based public defender 

offices employed no investigators in 2007

In 2007, 7% of the 469 county-based public

defender offices with at least 1.5 FTE litigating

attorneys met the accepted professional guideline

for the ratio of investigators to attorneys (table 13).

6

Two of these 469 offices employed 2 or more

investigators per 3 litigating attorneys.

Forty percent of all county-based offices employed

no investigators. Among offices receiving less than

1,000 cases in 2007, nearly 9 in 10 (87%) had no

investigators on staff. 

6

Since the guideline recommends 1 investigator per 3 litigating 

attorneys, the guideline is inapplicable to offices with fewer than 

1.5 FTE litigating attorneys. The guideline applies to offices with 

at least 1.5 and less than 3 FTE litigating attorneys, since these 

offices may employ part-time investigators. 

Nearly all county-based offices provided 

opportunities for public defense attorneys to 

improve trial skills

More than 9 in 10 (92%) county-based public

defender offices reported having formal policies

concerning continuing education requirements

(table 14). About half (48%) had formal policies

related to annual attorney performance review.

The CPDO collected data on the types of training

provided by county-based public defender offices.

Nine in 10 (92%) offices provided attorneys with

professional development opportunities in the area

of trial skills. A majority also provided

opportunities in juvenile delinquency (76%),

mental illness (58%), and appellate cases (53%).

Sixty-two percent of offices in states that had the

death penalty in 2007 provided professional

development opportunities in death penalty

defense. Civil defense training (20%) was the least

common type of professional development offered

by county-based public defender offices. Offices

with higher caseloads were more likely to offer

professional development opportunities in trial

skills as well as juvenile delinquency, mental illness,

and appellate cases.

A public defender 

program should have at 

least 1 investigator for 

every 3 litigating 

attorneys in a public 

defender program.

Defender organizations 

should offer professional 

development opportunities to assist attorneys in 

providing quality 

representation for 

indigent clients. Public 

defense counsels should 

also have systematic and 

comprehensive training 

appropriate to specific 

areas of practice.

Table 13. 

Full-time equivalent (FTE) investigators in county-based public defender offices, by office 

caseload, 2007

Office caseload Number of offices

Median FTE 

litigating attorneys

Percent of offices with no 

FTE investigators

Percent of offices with at least 1 FTE 

investigator per 3 litigating attorneys*

All offices 526 7 40% 7%

Less than 1,000 cases received 136 2 87 7

1,000-2,500 123 5 45 13

 2,501-5,000 102 9 22 4

 More than 5,000 153 28 7 5

Note: See Methodology for a definition of full-time equivalent (FTE).

*Includes only the 469 offices with at least 1.5 FTE litigating attorneys. Offices with at least 1.5 and less than 3 FTE litigating attorney that employ a part-time investigator 

could meet the nationally recommended guidelines regarding the ratio of investigators to litigating attorneys.

Table 14. 

Office policies and attorney professional development opportunities in county-based public defender offices, by office 

caseload, 2007

Percent of offices with— Percent of offices providing professional development training in—

Office caseload

Continuing legal 

education for 

attorneys

Annual attorney 

performance 

review Civil

Death penalty 

trial defense*

Juvenile 

delinquency Trial skills

Appellate 

cases

Dependency 

cases

Mental illness 

cases Other

All offices 92% 48% 20% 62% 76% 92% 53% 41% 58% 23%

Less than 1,000 cases 

received 84 18 27 43 69 77 39 43 40 20

1,000-2,500 93 42 16 58 74 97 56 42 57 19

2,501-5,000 98 56 12 63 76 94 56 39 54 20

More than 5,000 96 73 25 80 84 98 62 42 77 29

*The District of Columbia, Michigan, and West Virginia did not have death penalty statutes in 2007. Offices in these jurisdictions were not included in the calculation 

of the percent of offices providing professional development in death penalty trial defense.
September 2010 13

Less than 1% of offices accounted for 21% of all cases received in county-based public 

defender offices

Three offices with the highest caseloads accounted for one-fifth

(21%) of all cases received, 17% of overall operating

expenditures, and 16% of all FTE litigating attorneys among the

530 county-based offices in 2007 (table 16). Cases received in

these three offices were more likely to be misdemeanors or

ordinance violations than the types of cases received in all other

offices. These three offices served 14% of the overall population

served by the 530 county-based offices nationwide (not shown

in a table).

Table 16. 

Cases received, full-time equivalent (FTE) litigating attorneys and support staff, and operating expenditures in the three highestcaseload county-based public defender offices, 2007

Three highest-caseload offices

Characteristics All county-based public defender offices Total Percent of all county-based offices

Total caseload 4,081,029 839,553 21%

Felony non-capital 1,231,435 124,818 10

Misdemeanor/violationsa 2,067,403 569,268 28

Litigating attorney FTEb 10,705 1,731 16

Support staff FTEb 7,514 911 12

Total operating expendituresc $1,476,682,000 $245,924,000 17

a

Includes misdemeanors that carry a jail sentence and ordinance or municipal infractions or violations.

bSee Methodology for a definition of FTE.

c

Rounded to nearest thousand dollars.

The attrition rate of assistant public defenders 

in county-based offices was less than 1% in 

2007

County based public defender offices turned over

less than 1% of their assistant public defenders due

to resignation, termination, retirement, or illness

(table 15). The median attrition rate was 0% among

offices receiving fewer than 2,500 cases in 2007.

This may be due in part to the fact that there was

little opportunity for turnover because these offices

employed few litigating attorneys—37% of all

offices receiving less than 2,500 cases employed two

or fewer FTE litigating attorneys (not shown in

table). The median attrition rate in offices receiving

more than 5,000 cases in 2007 was 8%.

The median salary for entry-level assistant public

defenders ranged from $42,000 to $45,000. With 6

years or more experience, assistant public defenders

earned a median salary in the range of $54,000 to

$68,000. Assistant public defenders in higher

caseload offices received higher salaries in general.

Table 15. 

Length of service, attrition rate, and base annual salary for assistant public defenders in county-based public defender 

offices, by office caseload, 2007

Median years 

of serviceb

Median attrition 

ratec

Median salary for assistant public defenders—a

Entry level 5 years or less experience 6 years or more experience

Office caseload Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

All offices 6 0.3% $42,000 $45,000 $46,000 $54,000 $54,000 $68,000

Less than 1,000 cases received 2 0.0 40,000 43,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 51,000

1,000-2,500 6 0.0 40,000 43,000 44,000 52,000 50,000 61,000

2,501-5,000 6 4.8 43,000 45,000 48,000 55,000 55,000 68,000

More than 5,000 8 8.0 44,000 49,000 50,000 57,000 57,000 78,000

a

Rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

bPublic defender offices were asked to provide the average length of service for public defenders in their office. The data presented in the table are the median responses.

c

Attrition rate is defined as the number of litigating attorneys who left the office in fiscal year 2007, divided by the total number of litigating attorneys employed on the 

first day of the fiscal year. Attrition rate includes supervisory attorneys and assistant public defenders. 
14 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

Methodology

The 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices

(CPDO) collected office-level data from

approximately 950 publicly funded public defender

offices located in the 49 states and the District of

Columbia. (Maine had no public defender offices in

2007 and provided all indigent defense services

through assignment to and contract services with

private attorneys.) The universe included all public

defender offices principally funded by state or local

governments and that provided general criminal

defense services, conflict services, or capital case

representation.

Federal public defender offices that provided

primarily contract or assigned counsel services with

private attorneys were excluded from the data

collection. Additionally, any public defender offices

that were privately funded or principally funded by

tribal governments, or provided primarily appellate

or juvenile services were outside the scope of the

project and were excluded.

Scope of Data Collection

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the National

Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA), and

a number of chief defenders and other experts in

the field of indigent defense collaborated to develop

the CPDO data collection instrument. The

instrument was sent to the American Bar

Association's Standing Committee for Legal Aid

and Indigent Defense and the National Association

of Criminal Defense Lawyers for review and

comment. Data collection began in April 2008 and

was completed in March 2009.

Questionnaires were sent to 1,046 public defender

offices in the United States. Approximately 97% of

the offices provided responses to at least some of

the critical items identified in the survey

instrument. 

Organizational Structure of Public Defender Offices

Office included in the census were administered

and funded at the county or state level. State-based

offices functioned entirely under the direction of a

central administrative office that funded and

administered all the public defender offices in the

state. County-based offices were administered at the

local level and funded principally by the county or

through a combination of county and state funds. In

the District of Columbia and states with countybased public defender offices, each of 588 offices

submitted one completed questionnaire via

hardcopy or online submission. This report

examines the 530 offices that served as the principal

public defender office for the district. For

information on data collection methods in statebased public defender programs, see the BJS report,

State Public Defender Programs, 2007, BJS Web,

September 2010.

Measuring caseload versus workload

The CPDO was designed to collect aggregate data

from public defender offices or programs.

Respondents were instructed to provide the number

of cases received by the office or program in 2007.

This caseload number is presented throughout the

report as a measure of public defender office labor. 

While workload—which factors into account case

complexity, administrative duties public defenders

may carry, and other matters—is generally

considered to be a more accurate measure of the

burden on public defenders than caseload, an

assessment of workload requires data on the

number and types of cases handled by individual

attorneys within an office, as well as information

about additional attorney responsibilities. The

survey instrument and project design did not allow

for assessment of the workload of individual

attorneys within an office. Providing data on

individual attorneys would have been burdensome

and time-consuming for the public defender offices

and programs. 

Calculating number of full-time equivalent (FTE)

litigating attorneys

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a computed statistic

calculated by dividing the hours worked by parttime employees by the standard number of hours

for full-time employees (40 hours per week) and

then adding the resulting quotient to the number of

full-time employees. (See U.S. Census Bureau,

Government Employment, 1997, Web. Updated

annually. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/

long_58632.htm>). 

Included as FTE litigating attorneys are attorneys

carrying a caseload (supervisory attorneys, assistant

public defenders, and chief defenders). Excluded

are managing attorneys who do not litigate cases. 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

*NCJ~231175*

15 County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the

U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.

This Special Report was written by Donald Farole, Jr., Ph.D.

and Lynn Langton. Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D. and Kyle C.

Harbacek verified the report.

Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report, Tina

Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared

the report for final printing under the supervision of 

Doris J. James.

September 2010, NCJ 231175

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its 

related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World 

Wide Web Internet site: <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2211>.

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov