In the latest chapter of Oregon’s public defense crisis saga, a Clackamas County judge ruled that attorneys at two nonprofit public defense organizations don’t need to take cases that would stretch them beyond their capacity.
In court on Thursday and Friday, Public Defender of Marion County and Southwestern Oregon Public Defender Services argued that caseload requirements for Oregon’s public defenders are so large and overwhelming that they are preventing state-funded defense attorneys from providing adequate counsel to their clients, violating the Sixth Amendment rights of Oregonians accused of a crime.
Clackamas County Circuit Court Judge Michael Wetzel issued the decision Friday afternoon. It will likely be appealed.
Public Defender of Marion County Executive Director Shannon Wilson testifies in Clackamas County Circuit Court Thursday, Feb. 19.
Holly Bartholomew / OPB
Public Defender of Marion County Executive Director Shannon Wilson said that Wetzel’s ruling validated everything they’ve worked for over the past several years.
“Clients that get assigned counsel from our office don’t have to worry about those attorneys being pressured to take on more and more cases, more and more clients in a way that would hurt you,” Wilson said after the ruling. “You’re finally going to have somebody that can be there, and has the time, attention and resources.”
Last fall, Public Defender of Marion County and Southwestern Oregon Public Defender Services sued the Oregon Public Defense Commission in state court. The organizations accused the state agency of turning what was supposed to be a maximum caseload for public defenders into a baseline requirement.
“The State of Oregon has an obligation to provide a public defense system that is both ethical and constitutional,” the lawsuit stated. “To do that, the State must support a system where public defenders have the time and capacity to perform their jobs properly.”
Related: Criminal charges must be dismissed if defendant can’t get a lawyer, Oregon Supreme Court rules
The Marion County organization of public defenders, which employs about a quarter of the public defenders in the county, filed the lawsuit in September. The suit came after the commission floated a new contract for nearly all the state’s public defenders that set new caseload quotas.
Those quotas, the organizations asserted, were based on “antiquated and thoroughly discredited caseload standards.” Due to body camera use and other advancing technologies, reviewing all the evidence when investigating the claims against a client takes longer than it used to, the plaintiffs argued.
The commission is responsible for providing defense counsel to everyone accused of a crime in Oregon. It is governed by a 13-member board and led by an executive director appointed by the governor.
Oregon has for years been in a public defense crisis with not enough public defenders to cover every defendant in the state.
To address the crisis, Oregon leaders recently initiated a system overhaul. The commission’s board fired its then-director in 2022. A year later, the legislature moved the commission out from under the purview of the Oregon Judicial Department to the executive branch, where it is now overseen by the governor.
The commission has argued that the crisis has lessened recently. Still, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that defendants accused of a crime who do not have access to an attorney within a certain window must have their cases dismissed.
When that ruling came out, the Oregon Judicial Department estimated it could lead to the dismissal of 1,400 cases across the state.
Related: Oregon’s public defense crisis appears to improve, but some attorneys remain skeptical
The commission declined to comment on what Wetzel’s ruling reducing case load requirements would mean for people waiting for an attorney, given the state Supreme Court decision. The agency said it would be “premature to speculate on the impacts of a ruling.”
When Wetzel asked attorneys for the commission what the consequences of new lower case load standards would be, Oregon Assistant Attorney General Allie Boyd said they would be “broad.”
Wetzel previously ruled that a provision of the contract, which penalizes public defense organizations for “refusing to accept cases in excess of what they believe they can ethically handle,” was unconstitutional.
The nonprofit organizations argued that OPDC likely violated that injunction in January in an email it sent to Wilson. The message threatened to remove funding for PDMC because its attorneys had refused cases that they believed would put them past their “ethical capacity” if other attorneys at the organization could not make up the difference.
During this week’s trial, newly appointed OPDC Executive Director Ken Sanchagrin testified that the email was sent in error due to “genuine confusion” following the injunction.
Wetzel said the court would hear the matter of a possible injunction violation at a later date.
Wilson testified that there was “a lot of instability” after the contract change became clear in the fall. Wilson said that the commission reduced funding for the organization by five full-time attorney positions in the new contract.
Sanchagrin added that the commission faces “immense pressure from the legislature” to ensure that funds are spent efficiently.
