PORT ANGELES — A change is in the air for the state criminal justice system; whether it will be positive or negative is the topic of conversation for Clallam and Jefferson counties.
The state Supreme Court is deliberating mandating reductions for indigent (public) defense workloads, to be phased in over a three-year period.
Currently, full-time public defenders can handle either 150 felonies or between 300 and 400 misdemeanors, as well as limits for other types of cases, according to the state Office of Public Defense.
Many argue those caseload standards lead to overworked public defenders and a lower quality of defense.
“We are at a crisis point within the state,” Clallam County Chief Public Defender Harry Gasnick said. “It seems to be universally conceded that the existing standards are not viable.”
With the average attorney working about 1,500 hours per year, Gasnick said an attorney who handles misdemeanors would be able to spend about 3.75 hours per case for charges like domestic violence, driving under the influence and more.
“Would you want them to spend an average of three hours and some change on your case?” he said.
“Right now, my clients are adversely impacted by the number of cases that I have to do,” said Richard Davies, the director of Jefferson Associated Council. “[That] is something that is detrimental to their having a zealous advocate.”
In addition, Gasnick said many public defender veterans are “dropping out due to burnout at an extraordinary rate” and fresh lawyers are tentative about entering the field, largely due to the heavy workloads.
To help combat those struggles, the state Supreme Court is considering a public defender workload limit of 47 felony case credits or 120 misdemeanor credits per year, to be phased in between July 2025 and July 2027.
The proposed standards are focused on case credits rather than total cases. Credits would be determined by the average amount of time needed to handle a case, Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols said, and they could range from eight credits for a case with a sentence of possible life without parole to one credit for less serious felonies.
Additionally, the court’s proposed standards would mandate more investigative and social worker staffers for public defender offices, Gasnick said.
“The philosophical idea is to reduce the volume of cases and increase the quality of time spent on those,” Nichols said during a presentation to the Port Angeles city council earlier this month.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt that new standards are needed,” Gasnick said, although he noted that Clallam County’s public defenders are not hitting the already-established maximum workload limit and are able to handle their current workloads.
Some individuals who have raised concerns about the logistical implementation of these standards worry that they may do more harm than good.
One of the logistical challenges is the costs it would incur, as no funding source has been identified and the costs would likely fall to already struggling counties.
If the standards are adopted, Clallam County’s public defense costs would rise from about $2.2 million per year (with about $70,000 coming from the state) to $4.8 million by 2028, according to a letter written by the county commissioners.
Jefferson County commissioners had similar concerns, citing public defense costs of $920,076, with only $29,406 of state funding, according to prior reporting. They are predicting the proposed standards would increase the costs by more than 150 percent.
“There’s no question these standards would be very difficult and costly to implement,” Gasnick said.
If the standards are adopted, Jefferson County’s letter indicated that the state should consider footing a bigger part of the bill, although the Legislature has given no indication of that happening.
“I’m sympathetic to the counties thinking that the state should pay more,” Davies said.
Another concern is the public defender shortage.
If the proposed standards are adopted, counties would need to hire more public defenders to fill the gap created by the decreased workloads. But there is a concern about where those individuals would come from, given the large shortage that the state is facing.
Nichols said rural jurisdictions have been hit particularly hard from these shortfalls with “no functional plan to address the shortage.”
“We can’t attract attorneys as it is, even with bonuses sometimes,” Clallam County commissioner Randy Johnson said during a work session this month.
The proposed standards would require Clallam County to hire 10 additional public defenders, plus 14 other full-time support staff employees, according to the commissioners’ letter.
“In the real world, this is unrealistic,” the letter reads.
Davies said the state Office of Public Defense has begun outreach to law schools and young attorneys, which could help combat the public defender shortage.
“I think with outreach and competitive salaries, there will be sufficient lawyers to take care of the reduced caseload standards,” he said.
If those measures cannot combat the public defender shortage, Nichols said the proposed standards may result in a lack of prosecution or increased case dismissal for “petty crimes” such as property or traffic crimes.
Counties across Washington already are seeing that happen. In the spring, Benton County jail released individuals charged with escape, burglary, theft, assault and rape due to lack of adequate public defenders.
That will result in the “de facto decriminalization of all but the most serious of crimes,” Nichols said, and it could lead to vigilante justice from citizens.
“Who will lose out in the end are people,” he said.
“The impacts … will substantially dismantle the effectiveness of the criminal justice system,” Port Angeles Chief of Police Brian Smith said.
Davies said the lack of prosecution for certain types of crimes doesn’t sound like a problem.
“There are a number of charges that need not be filed as crimes,” he added.
Rather, Davies said individuals who commit those crimes should be charged with infractions or sent through a diversion program.
However, Nichols said the proposed standards might negatively impact some diversion programs, such as therapeutic courts, which often require the case to be prosecuted before referral. If cases are no longer getting prosecuted, they can’t be referred, he said.
Another potential side effect, Smith said, is a loss of morale within law enforcement as officers watch charged individuals walk away scot-free.
“Some people might just do their job and not worry about anything beyond when they make the arrest,” he said. “But that isn’t the kind of people we normally hire.”
While Smith said the concerns about heavy workload and public defender workload are “valid,” he added, “that doesn’t mean you’re going to break the system to address those concerns.”
The proposed standards are based on a National Public Defense Workload study published last July.
Rather than implementing the proposed standards, Nichols said a state-specific criminal justice study should be conducted that solicits input from public defenders, prosecutors, judges, crime victim advocates, law enforcement officers, the public and the state Legislature about how to fix the flaws in the criminal justice system.
Gasnick said putting a pause on new standards to do a new study or figure out alternative standards “just keeps the status quo in place, and the status quo is unacceptable.”
“I support a change in the standards, and I support that a change in standards be done immediately,” he said.
The state Supreme Court is taking public comment regarding the caseload standards, which can be submitted by emailing supreme@courts.wa.gov. The public comment period will close by the end of day today, and a second public hearing will be held Nov. 13.
The court will make a decision on the proposed caseload standards in mid-January, Nichols said.
________
Reporter Emma Maple can be reached by email at emma.maple@peninsuladailynews.com.
