Opinion ID: 1766494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Current Status of the Office of State Public Defender

Text: Although the General Assembly's creation of the public defender's office may have lessened the problems that were occurring at the time this Court decided Wolff, the office once again is facing inadequate resources, largely as a result of the increasing caseloads generated by the increasing numbers of persons charged with crimes. In January 2006, an interim committee of the Missouri Senate issued a Report on the Missouri State Public Defender System. The committee found that although the public defender's office had had no addition to its staff in six years, its caseload had risen by more than 12,000 cases. REPORT OF SENATE INTERIM COMMITTEE ON THE MISSOURI STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM A-1, Jan. 2006. The report cited an assessment of the system stating that `the probability that public defenders are failing to provide effective assistance of counsel and are violating their ethical obligations to their clients increases every day.' Id. At the same time, however, the Senate committee stated that the office had no way to control or reduce its workload except to refuse cases and throw the state of Missouri into federal court for constitutionally violating the right of indigent clients to effective assistance of counsel. Id. Despite the Senate committee's report, the caseload crisis of the public defender's office has continued to grow. The commission enacted 18 CSR 10-4.010 in December 2007 [16] to limit the number of cases each public defender district could take. The rule authorizes the commission to maintain a caseload standards protocol identifying the maximum caseload each district office can be assigned without compromising effective representation. 18 CSR 10-4.010(1). The protocol, authorized by the rule and developed by the public defender commission, modifies the maximum recommended caseload standards developed by the National Advisory Council of the United States Department of Justice Task Force on the Courts in 1972 (See Appendix A), in which the National Advisory Council determined the maximum number of cases one lawyer could handle each year based on each type of case. [17] The commission gives each case a weight based on how many hours a lawyer can be expected to work on the case. (See Appendix B). This is distinguishable from the National Advisory Council, which gives each case a weight based on the number of each type of case a lawyer can be expected to handle in a year. The commission also distinguishes among the different types of felony offenses in its calculations by dividing the broad National Advisory Council felony category into subcategories of sex offenses and other felony offenses. [18] In addition, the commission's standards add categories for probation violation cases, Rule 29.15 motions [19] and appeals, and Rule 24.035 motions [20] and appeals. The result is a chart that denotes how many hours it should take one lawyer to work on one of each type of case. (See Appendix C). The commission determined that each lawyer has 2,340 hours per year, or 45 hours per week, available. Yet other factors must be taken into account, which are subtracted from that number: (1) 216 hours of annual personal and holiday leave; [21] (2) sick leave; [22] and (3) 13.4 percent of total available attorney hours are used for non-case-related tasks such as continuing legal education, waiting in court for cases to be called and administrative tasks. After subtracting these factors from 2,340 hours, the result is 1,752 available hours per attorney per year. (See Appendix D). This number does not include a reduction for travel time [23] and management/supervisory time of 1.5 hours per week for each employee supervised, [24] because that number must be calculated separately for each district. The number of available hours per attorney per year (1,752 minus travel time and management time) then is multiplied by the number of lawyers in a district office to determine the district office's maximum-allowable caseload standard. To determine whether a district office has exceeded its caseload standard, the commission determines the number of cases assigned to the office in each category of case types. Each case then is multiplied by the number of hours that a lawyer should need to devote to the case (see Appendix C) and then totaled to determine the total number of hours needed for attorneys to handle the caseload assigned to that district. This is done based on the number of cases in three-month intervals. If the number of hours needed to handle the caseload is greater than the number of available attorney hours, the district is placed on limited availability status pursuant to 18 CSR 10-4.010(2). When that determination is made, the director must file a certification of limited availability with the presiding judge of each circuit court or chief judge of each appellate district affected. This certification must be accompanied by statistical verification that the office has exceeded its maximum-allowable caseload for at least three consecutive months. Notice that an office is at risk of limited availability also must be provided to each presiding or chief judge at least one month before limiting the availability of the district office. After notice is given, the rule requires the district defender and other members of the public defender management personnel to consult with the court and prosecutors to determine which categories of cases are to be excluded from representation when the district is designated as having limited availability. Once a district office is certified as having limited availability, the district defender must file with the court a final list of categories of cases that it no longer will take. 18 CSR 10-4.010(2). After certification, the public defender must provide the presiding or chief judge with a caseload report each month verifying that the district's availability remains limited. The district office is reinstated to full availability when the caseload has fallen below the maximum for two consecutive months. 18 CSR 10-4.010(3). As of July 2009, every Missouri public defender office was over its calculated capacity under 18 CSR 10-4.010. [25] Beyond the constitutional problems this may be creating for indigent defendants in Missouri, the public defenders themselves are risking their own professional lives. The American Bar Association has stated that there is  no exception [to the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility] for lawyers who represent indigent persons charged with crimes. [26] Nor has this Court created an exception in the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 4, which governs all Missouri lawyers. The excessive number of cases to which the public defender's offices currently are being assigned calls into question whether any public defender fully is meeting his or her ethical duties of competent and diligent representation in all cases assigned. The cases presented here to this Court show both the constitutional and ethical dilemmas currently facing the Office of State Public Defender and its clients.