Opinion ID: 1789708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: public defenderrefusal of appointment

Text: The Florida Public Defender Association originally proposed to the Minimum Standards Committee a subdivision providing that [t]he Public Defender may refuse appointment on new capital cases when his/her caseload is excessive for the number of qualified attorneys working in the office. The annual caseload for an assistant public defender should not exceed three capital cases. The Committee declined to include this language in its proposals, explaining that it would deprive the trial court of control over the assignment of counsel, and that excessive caseload issues can be addressed by the court under proposed subdivision (j), Limitation on Caseloads. The Association now strongly urges this Court to include within this rule a provision authorizing the public defender to refuse an appointment in a capital case due to overload, asserting that [i]t is the constitutional duty and responsibility of each Public Defender to decide, in the first instance, whether an Assistant Public Defender is qualified to handle a particular case or caseload; and then, in the second instance, to decide whether the qualified Assistant Public Defender has an excessive caseload, thereby diminishing the likelihood of effective representation. No appointing court appoints a specific Assistant Public Defender. The Public Defender is appointed in every criminal case. See § 27.52(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999) (If the court finds that the accused person ... [is] indigent ... the court shall appoint the public defender ...) (emphasis supplied). Moreover, Public Defenders, as all lawyers, are ethically obligated not to represent clients when excessive caseloads impair representation. See generally Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. The Association additionally notes that implementation of the minimum standards may have a fiscal impact on the [Public Defender Offices'] already strained resources ... [which] will be required to recruit, train, and retain qualified counsel. While acknowledging that the Association's concerns are well taken, the Committee suggests that excessive caseload issues, such as this, can be adequately addressed by the court under proposed sub-division (j), Limitation on Caseloads, which provides, in pertinent part: As soon as practicable, the trial court should conduct an inquiry relating to counsel's availability to provide effective assistance of counsel to the defendant. In assessing the availability of prospective counsel, the court should consider the number of capital or other cases then being handled by the attorney and any other circumstances bearing on the attorney's readiness to provide effective assistance of counsel to the defendant in a timely fashion. No appointment should be made to an attorney who may be unable to provide effective legal representation as a result of an unrealistically high caseload. While we generally agree with the Committee's response, we are adding the following paragraph to subdivision (j) to specifically focus on caseload issues within the Public Defenders' offices: If a Public Defender seeks to refuse appointment to a new capital case based on a claim of excessive caseload, the matter should be referred to the Chief Judge of the circuit or to the administrative judge as so designated by the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge or his or her designate should coordinate with the Public Defender to assess the number of attorneys involved in capital cases, evaluate the availability of prospective attorneys, and resolve any representation issues.