Court Opinion

ID: 9761420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:42:31.305122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:23.644428
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
The public interest is not served by insulating public defenders from claims of negligence. Thus, our established caselaw precludes a grant of immunity to these defendants. See DuBree v. Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540, 393 A.2d 293 (1978).
My recently expressed view as to the inappropriateness of immunity for appointed counsel is equally applicable here. Like appointed counsel, the public defender “does not need any more discretion, freedom, or encouragement to exercise his professional judgment and skill than does privately retained counsel.” Ferri v. Ackerman, 483 Pa. 90, 100, 394 A.2d 553, 558 (1978) (Roberts, J., joined by Larsen, J., *490dissenting), cert. granted, 440 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1213, 59 L.Ed.2d 454 (1979).
Litigants represented by the public defender are entitled to the same quality of legal assistance required of privately retained counsel. Immunity would only permit less zealous representation and deny to those who cannot afford private counsel an equal remedy for their injuries. See Ferri, (dissenting opinion), supra.
Accordingly, I agree that the complaint against these defendants was improperly dismissed.
LARSEN, J., joins in this concurring opinion.