Skip navigation

Wa Public Defender Report on Indigent Defense 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
2007 STATUS REPORT
ON
PUBLIC DEFENSE
IN
WASHINGTON STATE

April 2008

Washington State Office of Public Defense

2007 STATUS REPORT
ON
PUBLIC DEFENSE
IN
WASHINGTON STATE

April 2008

Washington State Office of Public Defense
711 Capitol Way South, Suite 106
P.O. Box 40957
Olympia, Washington 98504-0957
Phone: (360) 586-3164
Facsimile: (360) 586-8165
Email: opd@opd.wa.gov
Website: www.opd.wa.gov

Advisory Committee Members

Judge Harold D. Clarke (ret.), Chair
Mr. Russell M. Aoki
Judge George Finkle (ret.)
Representative Patricia Lantz
Mr. Jeff Hall
Mr. Andy Pascua
Senator Debbie Regala
Representative Jay Rodne
Judge Karen Seinfeld (ret.)
Ms. Catherine Smith
Senator Val Stevens

Office of Public Defense

Joanne I. Moore, Director
Sophia Byrd McSherry, Deputy Director
711 Capitol Way South, Suite, 106
P.O. Box 40957
Olympia, Washington 98504-0957
Telephone: (360) 586-3164
Fax: (360) 586-8165
E-mail: opd@opd.wa.gov
Website: www.opd.wa.gov

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The state, counties and cities file criminal and other legal actions against more
than 230,000 impoverished people in Washington each year. In cases that may result
in incarceration or that involve fundamental rights, the federal and state constitutions,
state statutes and court rules require that a public defense attorney be appointed to
represent the indigent person.
Public defense quality issues were largely ignored for decades in Washington,
but have been the focus of a dynamic reform movement since 2004. In 2005 and 2006,
the Legislature instituted a new statewide program for public defense improvement
under RCW 10.101, administered by the Washington State Office of Public Defense
(OPD), as well as a public defense consulting service and a training program at the
state agency. State funds for public defense improvement at the county and city level
were first appropriated by the 2006 Legislature, which increased the appropriation to
$6.5 million annually in 2007.
This second annual Status Report identifies important aspects of public defense
improvement in Washington during 2007, with an emphasis on public defense issues for
children and teenagers accused of crimes in juvenile court. The key elements of the
report include:
•

Juvenile Representation: A description of challenges that continue to impact
the right to effective assistance of counsel for children and teenagers in juvenile
court, including the finding that in 17 counties public defense attorneys are not
available to attend the first—often critical—court hearing for juveniles accused of
crimes. The report also examines caseload limits, compensation issues,
educational opportunities and specialized training, and supervision of attorneys
who represent juvenile offenders.

•

Committee on Public Defense: Highlights from the Washington State Bar
Association (WSBA) Committee on Public Defense activities. The Washington
Defender Association (WDA) and the Committee completed a two-year review of
public defense standards, including caseload standards, and recommended
revisions in keeping with developments in the practice of criminal law that have
occurred in the 17 years since the WSBA first endorsed standards. In
September the WSBA Board of Governors adopted revised state standards for
public defense services. The new standards are available on the OPD web site
at www.opd.wa.gov.

•

OPD Programs: A review of OPD programs in the past year, including trial court
consulting with counties and cities, attorney training statewide, criminal defense
pilot programs in three courts, and parents’ representation in dependency and
termination cases in 25 counties. In 2007, OPD conferred with many county and
city officials, judges and defense attorneys to plan and facilitate local program
improvements. OPD also developed and hosted five regional training
conferences that provided free continuing legal education (CLE) credits to public
defense attorneys in those regions.
OPD’s Parents Representation Program, which provides state-funded public
defense attorneys to parents in dependency and termination cases, expanded to
seven additional counties in 2007. In October, OPD published an “Update on
Criteria and Standards for Determining and Verifying Indigency,” which is
available at www.opd.wa.gov. OPD also continued three pilot criminal defense
programs begun in 2006 in Bellingham Municipal Court, Thurston County District
Court and Grant County Juvenile Court. A formal, independent evaluation of
each pilot is scheduled for late 2008.

•

Statewide Public Defense Improvement Program: An overview of significant
county and city public defense program enhancements achieved in the past year
as a result of the new state funding assistance under RCW 10.101. These
include improvements in system structure and oversight; attorney caseloads and
attorney attendance at initial court proceedings; attorney compensation, training
and administrative support; and attorney access to defense investigators,
interpreters and experts.

•

County Public Defense Reports: A collection of detailed program reports from
each of the 38 counties that applied for and received a pro rata share of state
funding in 2007 pursuant to the requirements and distribution formula of RCW
10.101. The data in each report is compiled largely from the county’s funding
application, and contracts for public defense services, and Administrative Office
of the Courts’ county caseload reports.

While state and local governments achieved significant improvements in public
defense programs in 2007, there remain troubling barriers to ensuring the constitutional
and statutory guarantees of counsel. In particular, excessively high caseloads, low
compensation for contracted attorneys, and inadequate oversight in the administration
and delivery of trial level public defense services require ongoing and focused attention,
as well as enhanced state funding. These challenges cut across all types of public
defense in all areas of the state, but perhaps are most acute for public defense services
for children and teenagers facing criminal charges in juvenile courts.

The constitutional obligation to provide adequate public defense representation
to impoverished persons was codified in 1989 and 2005, when the Legislature
established that:
effective legal representation must be provided for indigent persons
…consistent with the constitutional requirements of fairness, equal
protection, and due process in all cases where the constitutional
right to counsel attaches. RCW 10.101.005.
It is critical that all involved—the state, counties, cities and the justice
community—continue to diligently work together to establish a public defense system
that truly delivers on this promise.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction……………………………………………………………………1

Public Defense in Juvenile Offender Cases……………………………….2

2007 Developments in Public Defense Statewide..……………………..10

County Report...……………………………………………………………..24

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………...68

INTRODUCTION
A large percentage of the cases in Washington’s justice system are
governmental prosecutions against indigent individuals. Each year, the counties and
cities charge more than 200,000 poor adults with crimes that may result in their
incarceration. The state files actions against thousands of parents in deprivation of
parental rights cases. The counties bring some 22,000 juveniles who face allegations
that they are offenders into court for initial appearances or more extended proceedings.
The U.S. and state constitutions recognize that there are fundamental individual
rights at stake in these cases, as well as an enormous imbalance of power and
resources between the government and the impoverished people involved.
Consequently, poor individuals who face such cases in Washington are constitutionally
guaranteed the right to be represented by an effective attorney to protect their rights.
As a result of the work of many groups and individuals over the past four years,
public defense in Washington is now in the midst of a dynamic reform movement. Four
years ago, a Seattle Times series exposed widespread inadequacies in public defense
practices; the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups filed a lawsuit
against a county for failing to provide acceptable public defense, successfully settled
soon thereafter; the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) published a Blue
Ribbon Panel report analyzing the breadth and the depth of the public defense
deficiencies statewide; and the courts’ Justice in Jeopardy initiative targeted the
improvement of public defense statewide as a critically needed reform.
The 2005 Legislature responded to these reports and findings by funding a public
defense consulting and training program at the Office of Public Defense (OPD) and
adopting amendments to RCW 10.101 that establish a public defense improvement
program for the counties and cities. The 2006 Legislature appropriated funds for the
new program; funds were distributed in December 2006 for use in calendar year 2007.
The administration of the first year of the program is reported here.
Over the years, each county has developed an individualized system for
providing public defense. Some have organized public defender offices; others appoint
private attorneys, who are often on contract, to handle the representations. Through the
RCW 10.101 process, the counties report valuable information and statistics to OPD
about how public defense is administered locally. This information is set forth in county
data reports located in the second half of this report.
The first half of the report updates public defense improvement efforts, with a
particular emphasis on public defense for juveniles. Many state and federal resources
are directed at improving services for children and teenagers in the juvenile offender
system. However, adequate public defense representation for juveniles is all too often a
relatively low priority in Washington jurisdictions.

1

PUBLIC DEFENSE IN JUVENILE OFFENDER CASES
Children and teenagers who are alleged to have committed juvenile offenses are
guaranteed the assistance of public defense attorneys under the federal and state
constitutions, state statutes and court rules.1 However, public defense for juveniles is
often an overlooked area. Many of the counties’ systems are underfunded and poorly
resourced, resulting in the failure to appoint attorneys for all court appearances and
excessive caseloads, among other problems.
In Washington, some 45,000 juveniles are arrested each year. Several thousand
more are summoned or referred to court. Always present at the initial court appearance
are a judicial officer, the prosecutor and the juvenile2.
If a juvenile lives in one of the 22 counties where public defense attorneys are
present and available for appointment at the initial appearance hearing, he or she will
have the assistance of counsel during this potentially intimidating and complex
proceeding. Juveniles who live in 17 other counties must fend for themselves in many
cases. In initial appearance hearings in these counties, public defense attorneys are
often unavailable for appointment; in some of these counties, public defense attorneys
are never present at initial appearance hearings.
Initial appearance hearings are critically important, establishing probable cause
and often setting the course as to how the case will progress. After the initial
appearance hearing, the prosecutor reviews the juvenile’s case and then decides how
to proceed. Prosecutors direct some 16,000 cases into diversion programs annually
pursuant to RCW 13.40.070(6) and (7), which establish that a juvenile’s first case must
be handled through diversion and that the prosecutor has discretion to divert a later
case depending on the circumstances and the juvenile’s criminal history. Prosecutors
press charges against another approximately 20,000 juveniles each year. When
appropriate due to lack of evidence or other considerations, prosecutors take no
action—resulting in the dismissal of about 8,800 referrals in 2004.3
Representing juveniles can be more challenging than representing adults, as
their lack of maturity presents practical difficulties and may serve as a basis for legal
defenses. In recent years, both nationally and within Washington State, attention and
concern have been focused on improving the juvenile justice system and encouraging
better outcomes for children and teenagers.
Washington’s juvenile offender public defense system was examined in detail in
2003, when the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Juvenile Defender
1

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) established indigent juveniles’ constitutional right to counsel. RCW 13.40 codifies
juveniles’ right to counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings and establishes that counsel shall be provided to a
juvenile who is financially unable to obtain counsel without causing substantial hardship to the juvenile or the
juvenile’s family. Juvenile Court Rule 6.2 mandates that juveniles be appointed counsel for diversion proceedings.
2
The juvenile’s parents are notified to appear, but for the most part they do not speak for the juvenile or take an
active role.
3
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, Washington State Juvenile Justice Report 2006, at 177.
2

Center, the Northwest Juvenile Defender Center, TeamChild Advocacy for Youth,
Washington Defender Association (WDA), WSBA, and the Washington State
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee jointly published a report titled
Washington: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in
Juvenile Offender Matters, supra. (Washington Juvenile Assessment). This report
found that many practices in the defense of juvenile offenders needed improvement,
including the adoption of standards, access to counsel, compensation, training,
resources, supervision or evaluation, caseloads, and effective counsel, among others.
Commencing in late 2005, the WSBA Committee on Public Defense looked
further at juvenile representation problems. A subcommittee was appointed to focus on
juvenile public defense, made up of judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, professors,
and others with extensive experience in juvenile cases and a broad range of
perspectives. In early 2007, the juvenile subcommittee found that
•
•
•
•
•

Most of the failings of the juvenile court system identified by the Washington
Juvenile Assessment four years earlier had not been addressed;
Most counties had not adopted public defense standards;
Many juveniles were not appointed counsel, contrary to law;
Caseloads remained excessive; and
Training and supervision of juvenile attorneys were lacking.

The subcommittee recommended that a court rule on waiving counsel be
proposed, that effective representation be provided to children at all court hearings, that
public defense standards be adopted by the jurisdictions and caseload limits be
followed, and that juvenile practice training be provided to attorneys before they
represent a juvenile, and on an ongoing basis. The WSBA Board of Governors
unanimously adopted these recommendations.
Since the Washington Juvenile Assessment’s publication, a few counties have
made significant improvements in juvenile public defense, but overall the representation
of children and teenagers remains inconsistent and, in a number of jurisdictions,
substandard. Following is a description of the status of juvenile public defense today
with respect to issues first identified by the Washington Juvenile Assessment.
Adoption of Standards
The first Washington Juvenile Assessment recommendation was that all
Washington counties adopt public defense standards. In 2003, few jurisdictions had
formally adopted standards as required by RCW 10.101. Today, however, almost all
counties have adopted public defense standards ordinances or resolutions or are in the
process of doing so. Many ordinances were adopted during the past year as a direct
result of OPD’s administration of the RCW 10.101 public defense improvement process.
In general, these local standards, and the WSBA public defense standards do
not differentiate between adult and juvenile public defense. In other words, they require
that juvenile attorneys be provided with the same resources, appropriate compensation
levels, adherence to caseload standards, etc., as attorneys who represent adults.
3

Access to Counsel
As established by the In re Gault decision, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), the keystone of
due process in these cases is the children and teenagers’ ability to access counsel.
The constitutional guarantee of counsel for them is further required by RCW 13.40.050,
13.40.100, 13.40.140 and JuCr 9.2. However, the Washington Juvenile Assessment in
2003 and the Committee on Public Defense in 2007 both reported that many juveniles
do not have access to counsel at all court hearings.
Statewide data reported by the juvenile subcommittee of the Committee on
Public Defense indicates that some 2,400 juvenile respondents appeared in court
hearings without appointed counsel in 2005. The Committee On Public Defense found
that a number of juvenile courts require juveniles to formally request counsel in writing
before allowing them to consult with an attorney, and that some courts routinely allow
juveniles to waive their rights and plead guilty to charges without ever speaking to an
attorney to discuss their rights and options.
To address the access to counsel issue, the Committee on Public Defense has
recommended a court rule that would establish a process to ensure juveniles
understand their right to counsel before waiving it. After approval by the WSBA Court
Rules Committee, the proposed rule was forwarded to the Supreme Court for
consideration. The proposed rule requires that a public defense attorney be present at
court hearings so the juvenile can consult with the attorney before deciding whether to
waive counsel. The Supreme Court has published the rule for comment at
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposedDetails&proposedId=26
An access to counsel issue of particular concern is the failure of a number of
counties to provide public defense attorneys to represent juveniles at all initial
appearance hearings. An OPD December 2007 survey identified 17 small to medium
counties that never or only sometimes are able to ensure that a public defender is
available for appointment at these hearings. The 17 counties handle about 30 percent
of Washington’s juvenile defense matters. An examination of Judicial Information
System data from a number of these counties confirms that for many initial juvenile
hearings, no public defense attorney is present.

30%

Attorneys
consistently
provided at initial
court hearings

Attorneys
not consistently
provided at initial
court hearings

2

70%

4

1

Counties’ Provision of Public
Defense Attorneys for Juveniles

This is troubling not only because failing to provide counsel is an infringement of
juveniles’ statutory and constitutional right to counsel, but also because the juveniles
involved are vulnerable and are forced to contend alone with the prosecutor and the
judge and all the complexities of their first hearing in court. The Washington Juvenile
Assessment quotes a juvenile court commissioner and a public defense attorney who
explained that in their counties:
No attorney for the child is present at the First Appearance. The judge reviews
the probable cause information with the child and the prosecutor….
(and, as an attorney noted) (t)here is no one making release or probable cause
arguments at this hearing.
In addition to the intimidation factor, juveniles who cannot access counsel at their
initial appearance are unlikely to be aware of what to expect in the case, how to
question law enforcement’s report about the incident in question, how to assert their
constitutional rights involved in the case, how to ask for release, and how the case may
impact their future, including eligibility for a driver’s license, student financial aid, school
notification and other collateral consequences. Further, as noted above, the prosecutor
decides whether to send the juvenile’s case to diversion or to press charges following
the hearing. When there is no defense attorney raising pertinent questions about the
allegations, for the most part, the prosecutor and the judge do not hear the other side of
the story, but only law enforcement’s version of the incident in question.
Compensation
Low compensation is a significant barrier to the development of effective juvenile
public defense representation statewide. In many counties, juvenile public defense
attorneys are compensated at relatively low levels. An OPD analysis of counties’ RCW
10.101 public defense improvement applications shows that in 13 counties reporting a
pay differential between juvenile and adult public defense,4 juvenile defense averaged
about 30 percent less than the amount spent for adult felony and misdemeanor
defense. (In addition, many counties pay low rates for all public defense cases,
including juvenile representations.) Between the counties, the range of per-case
juvenile public defense expenditure is very broad. Payment of less than $200 per case
is the norm in some counties, in both Eastern and Western Washington; some pay
around $300 per case, and a few pay some $400 or more per case.

4

These 13 counties separately reported their juvenile public defense expenditures on their RCW 10.101
applications. The other 25 participating counties reported their juvenile and adult public defense expenditures
together.
5

It is important for jurisdictions that underpay juvenile public defense attorneys to
increase compensation to a fair professional rate. The legal representation needs of
juveniles are as demanding and complex as the legal representation needs of adults.
As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault,

A proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be a
“delinquent” and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in
seriousness to a felony prosecution. The juvenile needs the assistance of
counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to
insist upon the regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a
defense and to prepare and submit it. The child “requires the guiding hand of
counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.”
Gault, supra, p. 36.
Caseload Limits
Standard caseload limits are critically important to attorneys’ ability to represent
public defense clients adequately. The Committee on Public Defense’s recent review of
public defense caseload standards found that the existing 250-case juvenile caseload
limit remains appropriate for Washington courts. Last year, Grant and Skagit counties
were in compliance with this standard. King County, which processes almost 40
percent of all Washington juvenile offenders, plans to use RCW 10.101 public defense
improvement funding to reduce juvenile caseloads in 2008.
In the 12 counties with public defender agencies the reported juvenile caseloads
vary from slightly over 250 to 700 per attorney. In these counties, the average appears
to be about 330 juvenile cases per year.
In 10 counties, juvenile criminal filings are below 250 cases per year, and in
some counties, juvenile defenders carry part-time caseloads of less than 250. (For
example, some small Eastern Washington contracts are for a maximum of 55 juvenile
cases.) In these counties, the WSBA standards establish that public defense cases
should be proportionally limited in relation to the attorneys’ additional caseload, whether
made up of additional public defense cases or private cases. Low compensation rates
and a lack of oversight in many jurisdictions often lead to excessive total caseloads for
part-time contract attorneys. It is not uncommon for attorneys to carry two or more
public defense contracts totaling many hundreds of cases, or to carry dozens of private
cases on top of their public defense contract cases. Commencing in 2007, public
defense contract attorneys are required to report the number of private cases in their
caseloads to the counties under RCW 10.101.050.

6

Adherence to the 250 juvenile caseload standard can directly and dramatically
improve the quality of representation services. For example, after juvenile attorney
caseloads in OPD’s Grant County Juvenile Court pilot program were halved, from the
equivalent of 500 to the equivalent of 250 per attorney, attorneys spent substantially
more time communicating with clients and preparing for court hearings, filing motions,
and taking cases to trial. In OPD’s preliminary pilot review, the parties and court
reported that Grant County pilot program attorneys were spending more time
communicating with their clients and preparing cases, in addition to time in court. The
pilot database, made up of individual case reports, indicates that the attorneys spend
their time as follows:

Source: Dr. Bill Luchansky/OPD Pilot Data

Grant County pilot attorneys spent almost 30 percent of their time communicating
with clients, and one-third of their time on various kinds of case preparation, such as
legal research and analysis and preparing for hearings.
The pilot evaluators indicated parties reported that prior to the pilot program,
defense attorneys did not talk with juveniles before they went to court, and were not
present at their arraignments. In addition, their high caseloads and limitations on
investigation constrained motion practice prior to the program’s institution. Pilot
evaluators interviewed judges, prosecutors, court administrators and defense attorneys,
who reported that the changes in defense practices decreased client confusion and
increased client satisfaction with defense representation. Clients had greater access to
their attorneys who were better able to respond to each case individually and could
meet with their clients in private office settings rather than in public hallways for a few
minutes right before court.

7

Training
In 2003 and 2007, the Washington Juvenile Assessment and the WSBA
Committee on Public Defense recommended more training opportunities for attorneys
practicing in juvenile court. During the past two years, juvenile law education has
significantly expanded statewide. Perhaps most important, the WSBA created a new
Juvenile Law Section in 2006. This section has over 160 members statewide, and
provides the opportunity for multi-disciplinary examination and discussion of juvenile
court issues.
In addition, there have been a number of recent juvenile law educational
opportunities in various regions of the state. Eight of OPD’s continuing legal education
programs in 2006 and 2007, and several WDA trainings, have included juvenile
representation presentations. OPD developed a program with the Center for Justice in
Spokane on sealing juvenile records. WDA developed a handbook detailing the
collateral and other non-confinement consequences of juvenile adjudications. Several
counties report that they have used their RCW 10.101 funds to pay for training, both in
and out of state, for public defense attorneys, including juvenile attorneys.
In conjunction with the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change initiative,
TeamChild, a youth advocacy agency, is creating a special counsel position to provide
additional continuing education programs and instructional materials for juvenile
defenders.
Supervision
Supervisors provide essential mentoring and oversight as attorneys work their
cases. One of the primary benefits of the public defender agency model is that all
attorney employees are directly supervised. In Washington’s 12 counties with public
defense offices, whether county agencies or non-profits, juvenile attorneys have
supervisors. Progress was made in this area recently when public defender agencies in
Snohomish, Chelan, and Cowlitz incorporated juvenile offender representation into their
operations.
Last year’s status report noted that supervision and evaluation are generally
ignored in public defense contracts. However, in the counties that have established
new public defense coordinators—Benton, Franklin and Clark—contract attorney
supervision is being addressed. The coordinators help select juvenile attorneys,
troubleshoot representation problems, and monitor the attorneys’ performance. This
has resulted in positive changes in juvenile representation (as well as adult
representation) in these court systems. Other jurisdictions could efficiently supervise
and evaluate contract public defense attorneys through this model, either on a county or
regional level.

8

Contract juvenile attorneys in the remainder of the state often have little or no
supervision or performance monitoring, especially if the juvenile attorney is a sole
practitioner. In most counties, the issue of supervision is not addressed in contracts
and no one in county government has the clearly established duty or professional
expertise necessary to supervise attorney performance of public defense contracts.
In 2003, the Washington Juvenile Assessment noted that critically important
supervision of juvenile public defense attorneys was available only in counties with
public defender agencies. The report recommended that the state create an
ombudsman position to oversee juvenile public defense issues. Though there has been
no call for the creation of a similar position to monitor juvenile defender representation,
effective oversight of juvenile defenders remains a priority need in efforts to improve the
quality of juvenile representation.

9

2007 DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC DEFENSE
During the past year, progress has been made on a number of fronts in
addressing Washington’s public defense problems. This includes a major new report by
the WSBA’s Committee on Public Defense, the adoption of updated public defense
standards by the WSBA, an OPD training program targeted at rural public defense
attorneys, the expansion of OPD’s Parents Representation Program, initial review of
OPD’s three ongoing pilot programs, and improvements implemented by the counties
and cities pursuant to the state’s RCW 10.101 program.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC DEFENSE
In September 2004, the WSBA Board of Governors chartered the Committee on
Public Defense to respond to the 2004 recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on
Criminal Defense’s report and recommendations. The Committee on Public Defense
met frequently from late 2004 through 2007, when the Committee’s report, Making
Good on Gideon’s Promise, was presented to the WSBA Board of Governors. The
WSBA Board of Governors approved most of the committee’s recommendations. They
include, among others:
• Formalize the process for juvenile waivers of counsel;
• Assure counsel at the first court appearance in all criminal matters;
• Make it an ethical violation for lawyers to knowingly enter into agreements to
provide defense services when such contracts obligate the lawyer to bear the
cost of providing conflict counsel or other services without reasonable
compensation;
• Endorse new public defense standards;
• Promulgate the two-track contempt of court procedure for domestic and other
cases;
• Continue education efforts about “Right to Counsel” and public focus on
adequate defense services;
• Promote adequate funding and state sharing of public defense services;
• Promote diversion;
• Insure state funding for prosecution and defense in all aggravated murder cases
including adequate investigation and mitigation specialists;
• Remedy current weaknesses in expertise, experience, pay, contracting, and
training of public defense counsel;
• Support a state system for accountability to caseload standards;
• Maintain a WSBA focus on defense issues;
• Create a juvenile focused state bar section;

10

•
•
•
•

Create an entity to continue the analysis of the mental illness and sex offender
commitment process and promulgate needed improvements;
Develop procedures to clear warrants for mentally disabled so their benefits are
not cancelled;
Expedite release hearings for persons when Eastern or Western Washington
Hospitals deem the committed person ready for discharge; and
Assure adequate compensation for specialty defense counsel, death penalty,
etc.).

The Committee on Public Defense further adopted a resolution declaring that the
WSBA should “continue to support an expanded role for the Office of Public Defense in
providing meaningful oversight, monitoring, reporting and training designed to ensure
that legislatively-mandated standards are adopted and implemented.” The resolution
further recommended WSBA’s active involvement, monitoring and advocacy for public
defense in Washington, and maintenance of a continuing special committee for public
defense to continuously evaluate new recommendations for improvements in the
structure and quality of public defense.
Committee on Public Defense Update of the Public Defense Standards
RCW 10.101.030 requires the counties to adopt local standards for public
defense by ordinance and establishes that standards adopted by the WSBA should be
used as guidelines. RCW 10.101.060 also cites to the WSBA endorsed standards,
mandating that counties receiving state funds must either meet the WSBA standards or
document that they are using the funds to make “appreciable demonstrable
improvements in the delivery of public defense services.”
Washington’s public defense standards were initially written by the WDA and
were adopted by the WSBA Board of Governors in 1990. Beginning in 2005, the
Committee on Public Defense conducted an exhaustive review of the standards, in
recognition of considerable changes in the legal system since their adoption.
The standards review was carried out by a Committee On Public Defense
subcommittee, made up of individuals with varying perspectives and decades of
experience within the criminal justice system including defenders, prosecutors, state,
county and city officials, the private sector, and the judiciary. WDA conducted its own
review contemporaneously, and extensive communications were exchanged between
the two groups. In August 2007, the Committee on Public Defense forwarded
recommendations for revisions to the WSBA Board of Governors, which adopted the
revised standards in September 2007. The updated Standards for Public Defense
Services are available at www.opd.wa.gov.

11

As of this date, 30 counties have adopted or are in the process of adopting public
defense ordinances that incorporate standards. In addition, four counties have public
defense resolutions and one relies on a court rule. OPD continues to work with the
remaining counties to adopt the statutorily required ordinances.
Cities receiving RCW 10.101 grant funds are also required to adopt public
defense ordinances. Thus far, at least 10 cities applying for funds have enacted or are
in the process of enacting public defense ordinances that adopt defense standards
pursuant to statute.

12

OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Consulting
In 2005, OPD established a public defense consulting and training program with
state funds appropriated for this purpose. Counties and cities are eligible for technical
assistance in all phases and methods of providing public defense services. Over the
past two years, OPD staff has communicated with officials in all counties and, upon
request, has consulted extensively with a number of jurisdictions. This program has
succeeded in assisting the counties in planning and implementing significant changes,
including contracts review, the adoption of new public defender agencies and ordinance
drafting, among others.
During the upcoming year, OPD will be emphasizing its consultation role in
conjunction with RCW 10.101’s requirement that the agency determine whether each
jurisdiction receiving state funds has substantially complied with the program’s statutory
requirements. To carry out this duty, OPD plans to visit each participating county and
city for in-person conversations with the officials who administer the jurisdiction’s public
defense program.
In each jurisdiction, indigency screening is a necessary part of administering a
public defense program. In October 2007, OPD published a report on indigency
screening in the courts. The report outlines state indigency requirements and includes
a new, streamlined indigency screening form piloted for courtroom use. This report is
available at www.opd.wa.gov/Report%202.htm, then click on Update on Criteria
Standards for Determining and Verifying Indigency (2007).

13

Continuing Legal Education Program
In addition to technical assistance, OPD conducted five regional training
conferences in Wenatchee, Vancouver, Spokane, Tri-Cities and Walla Walla during
2007. In 2006, six regional trainings were held, in Ocean Shores, Poulsbo, Vancouver,
Wenatchee, Spokane, and the Tri-Cities. The one-day continuing legal education
programs were provided free of charge to public defense attorneys practicing in the
regions. These regional trainings targeted rural areas where continuing education is
rarely, if ever, offered locally. Prior to each program, OPD created a list of all defenders
in a four or five county area, and sent out individualized invitations. To ensure the
programs’ relevancy, OPD worked with local defense attorneys in planning program
agendas.
Approximately 300 attorneys attended the conferences statewide each year.
Featured subjects included ethical considerations in the new Rules of Professional
Conduct, self defense, persistent offender law, juvenile practice, juvenile court records,
search and seizure law, preserving the trial record for appeal, expert witnesses,
immigration consequences of convictions, the development of a juvenile criminal record
sealing clinic, and a tour of the state penitentiary in Walla Walla. Numerous attorneys
noted their appreciation that the conferences were held in their areas, and that useful,
practical information was presented. RCW 10.101 requires contract public defense
attorneys to attend at least seven hours of an OPD-approved continuing legal education
program per year, and OPD will continue to present regional training conferences in the
future.
OPD 2006 and 2007 Regional Conferences

  2006 ‐ „ 
 
  2007 ‐   

14

OPD Parents Representation Program
OPD’s Parents Representation Program began as a pilot program in Pierce and
Benton-Franklin juvenile courts. The pilot followed an investigative report by OPD
establishing that county-funded representation for parents in dependency and
termination cases was inadequate. In 2005, the Legislature appropriated $4.5 million in
state annual funds to OPD’s budget sufficient to expand the Parents Representation
Program to 10 additional counties—Cowlitz, Ferry, Grant, Grays Harbor, Kittitas, Pacific,
Pend Orielle, Skagit, Stevens and Yakima. In 2006, the Legislature appropriated an
additional $4.1 million in state funds for the Parents Representation Program, which
allowed expansion to Clallam, Kitsap, Snohomish and Spokane counties, as well as to
Clark County on a one-year basis.
The 2007 Legislature appropriated an additional $3.25 million in annual funds for
program expansion. OPD implemented the program in Chelan, Jefferson, Klickitat,
Mason, Skamania, Thurston and Wahkiakum counties, as well as Clark County on an
ongoing basis. Program counties now total 25.
The Parents Representation Program has been widely praised as instituting
effective representation for parents in dependency cases in the courts in which it has
been implemented. In response to a survey taken by OPD for the Joint Legislative
Audit and Review Committee last fall, judicial officials in the program counties rated
Parents Representation Program attorneys’ quality of representation as 4.2 on a scale
of 1-5.
2007 OPD Parents Representation Program

The Parents Representation Program is established in the gray areas.

15

OPD Pilot Programs
In 2007, OPD continued three criminal court pilot programs that began in 2006.
During the year, an evaluator conducted a preliminary review of the first year of the
pilots. This information allowed OPD to oversee the programs effectively and was
instrumental to the public defense caseload standards review process. The pilot
programs are:
•

A misdemeanor pilot in Bellingham Municipal Court featuring additional statefunded attorneys, an investigator, and a social worker/paralegal, which has
lowered attorney caseloads and allowed public-defense representation at
arraignments and first appearance calendars.

•

A misdemeanor pilot at the Thurston County Office of Assigned Counsel which
added three district court attorneys and one paralegal to the public defender’s
staff. In carrying out the pilot program, caseloads have been reduced to 400 per
attorney, and the office now provides representation at all first
appearance/arraignment calendars.

•

The juvenile representation pilot in Grant County Juvenile Court, described
earlier, added 1.4 attorney FTEs to lower public-defense representation
caseloads to the WSBA-endorsed state standard of 250 cases per attorney per
year. The public defense caseload is supported by investigative services and a
part-time social worker.

OPD’s role in managing these pilot programs has been to work with the
attorneys, the public defense firms and public defender office, and the local courts; to
provide training for the attorneys (and mentoring where no supervising attorney has
been available); to regularly monitor the pilot programs; and to periodically evaluate
them.
To evaluate the pilot programs, OPD has contracted with a professional
evaluator chosen in a competitive solicitation process. The evaluator conducted an
initial review in 2007 including qualitative interviews of judges, defense attorneys,
prosecutors and court administrators, and concluded that all three sites appeared to be
successful in maintaining case assignments at or close to levels specified by OPD; all
but one attorney expressed satisfaction with the caseload level; the overwhelming
majority of judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors and court personnel viewed the
presence of defense attorneys at arraignment as a positive development;
communication between attorneys and clients improved substantially at all three sites;
and the overwhelming majority of interviewees agreed that additional attorneys and/or
resources provided by the pilots gave attorneys increased ability to focus on each case.
Publication of a formal evaluation of the three pilot programs is planned for
December 2008.

16

OPD Undergoes Performance Audit
When it established OPD as an independent judicial branch agency, the
Legislature made the agency subject to a sunset date of June 30, 2008, which triggered
a “sunset review” to evaluate the effectiveness of OPD and assist policymakers with
deciding whether the agency should be continued or terminated. The Joint Legislative
Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) initiated this sunset review in mid-2007.
After nearly six months of rigorous, professional study pursuant to Generally
Accepted Government Auditing Standards, the final JLARC report, issued January
2008, recommended that the Legislature repeal the sunset provision and permit OPD to
continue operating. Both the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the director of the
Office of Financial Management formally concurred in the JLARC recommendation.
Several legislators noted that they never before had seen such a favorable
agency audit from JLARC, which found that OPD is substantially meeting legislative
intent, operating in an effective and economical manner, meeting its performance goals
and targets, and not duplicating services provided by other agencies or the private
sector.
Senate Bill 6442, repealing the sunset clause and reauthorizing the Office of
Public Defense, unanimously passed the Legislature during the 2008 session.
Governor Gregoire signed the bill on April 1, 2008.

17

COUNTIES’ PUBLIC DEFENSE IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO RCW 10.101
Last year’s status report noted that counties face the following major challenges
in providing effective assistance of counsel to indigent defendants, among others:
•

Oversight of the administration and delivery of public defense services is
inadequate, and consequently deficiencies go unnoticed or are not appropriately
remedied.

•

Many counties lack sufficient funds to compensate contract attorneys reasonably
for carrying full public defense caseloads.

•

The caseloads in most counties are excessive, often resulting in rushed and
inadequate representation.

The inaugural distribution of RCW 10.101 public defense improvement funds,
which occurred in December 2006, enabled counties to make significant initial strides
toward addressing these concerns during 2007. Thirty-eight counties applied for and
received funds, and each expended them targeting the areas they felt were most
important. Based on a statutory formula that considers population and felony filings, the
participating counties received state funds varying from about $6,000 in the smallest
county to more than $600,000 in the largest.
During the application and distribution process, OPD conferred with many county
officials, judges and defense attorneys to plan and facilitate local improvements. Most
of the local public defense improvements achieved fall into the following general
categories: system structure and oversight; reducing attorney caseloads and providing
attorneys at all proceedings; attorney compensation, training and support; and
increasing attorney access to defense investigators, language interpreters and experts.
Within these general categories, the counties reported spending their state funds
as follows. (Counties that spent funds in more than one category are identified based
on the primary area of expenditure.)
System structure and oversight:
• Chelan County used RCW 10.101 funds to contract with a new private nonprofit
public defense firm—Counsel for Defense of Chelan County. Attorneys at the
firm work only on Chelan County public defense cases and represent indigent
clients in felony, misdemeanor and juvenile matters.

18

•

Clark County created and filled a new indigent defense coordinator position to
administer, monitor and enforce the county’s many public defense contracts with
private attorneys. OPD often communicates with the new coordinator, who is
identifying and implementing best practices in the largest county providing public
defense exclusively through contracts with private counsel.

•

Similarly, Benton and Franklin counties (which share a joint judicial district)
pooled their state funds to hire a professional indigent defense coordinator to
oversee the counties’ many public defense contracts with local private firms and
sole practitioners.

•

Cowlitz County began the process of moving from a contract system to creating a
public defender office as a new department of county government. The county
will retain some contracts as it phases in the new agency over the next five
years. The Cowlitz County Office of Public Defense now provides representation
to indigent clients in felony, misdemeanor and juvenile matters.

•

Kitsap County spent RCW 10.101 funds to hire a consultant to review the
county’s current contract system and recommend changes that would result in
the greatest program improvements. The county also purchased equipment and
Lexis-Nexis research programs for contract attorneys.

•

Snohomish County used RCW 10.101 funds to award its primary contract for
juvenile representation to the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, a
nonprofit private public defense agency that handles the majority of felony and
misdemeanor cases in the county. Previously, juvenile cases were handled by
individual contract attorneys and law firms. The county also used RCW 10.101
funds for an additional investigator, social worker and secretary for the Public
Defender Association.

Reducing attorney caseloads / providing attorneys at all proceedings:
• Ferry County spent RCW 10.101 funds to provide counsel at preliminary
hearings.
•

Grays Harbor County spent RCW 10.101 funds to contract with juvenile conflict
attorneys and to increase compensation for contract defense attorneys.

•

Island County spent RCW 10.101 funds to provide counsel at preliminary
appearance calendars.

19

•

King County spent RCW 10.101 funds to hire a county program manager,
provide training, increase pay for assigned counsel, and reduce attorney
caseloads.

•

Lewis County spent RCW 10.101 funds to provide counsel at initial appearance
calendars.

•

Okanogan County spent RCW 10.101 funds to contract with an additional public
defense attorney to help reduce caseloads.

•

Pend Oreille County spent RCW 10.101 funds to provide counsel at preliminary
hearings.

•

Pierce County spent RCW 10.101 funds to hire an additional attorney to reduce
caseloads. Pierce County operates the Department of Assigned Counsel as a
department of county government.
Skagit County spent RCW 10.101 funds to hire an additional defense attorney
and an investigator at the Skagit County Public Defender Office, a department of
county government.

•

•

Spokane County spent RCW 10.101 funds to hire two defense attorneys and
support staff to reduce caseloads for the Spokane Public Defender Office, a
department of county government.

•

Stevens County spent RCW 10.101 funds to provide counsel at preliminary
hearings.

•

Thurston County spent RCW 10.101 funds to provide counsel at arraignment, in
conjunction with an OPD misdemeanor pilot program.

•

Whatcom County spent RCW 10.101 funds to hire an additional defense attorney
at the Whatcom County Public Defender, a department of county government, to
help reduce caseloads.

•

Whitman County spent RCW 10.101 funds to contract with an additional defense
attorney and an investigator; the county also increased expert funds.

•

Yakima County spent RCW 10.101 funds to hire an additional defense attorney
at the Department of Assigned Counsel, a department of county government, to
reduce caseloads. The county also funded pay increases for contract attorneys.

20

Attorney compensation, training, equipment and support:
• Clallam County spent RCW 10.101 funds on new office equipment and computer
upgrades for Clallam Public Defender, a private nonprofit public defense
corporation. The county also increased compensation for the defense attorneys
and staff.
•

Columbia County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase compensation for
contract public defense attorneys.

•

Garfield County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase compensation for contract
public defense attorneys.

•

Lincoln County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase compensation for contract
public defense attorneys, and to provide software for attorneys.

•

Mason County spent RCW 10.101 funds on increases in compensation for public
defense attorneys and training.

•

Pacific County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase compensation for contract
public defense attorneys.

•

Wahkiakum County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase compensation for listappointed public defense attorneys.

•

Walla Walla County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase compensation for
contract public defense attorneys.

Increasing access to investigators, language interpreters and experts:
• Adams County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase expert and interpreter
services for contract public defense attorneys.
•

Asotin County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase defense investigator
services, and to provide training and legal research tools for contract public
defense attorneys.

•

Grant County spent RCW 10.101 funds for investigators for public defense
attorneys, language interpreters for attorney-client meetings, and on contracting
with more private attorneys to reduce juvenile caseloads (in conjunction with an
OPD pilot program in Grant County Juvenile Court).

•

Jefferson County, which contracts with the private nonprofit Jefferson Associated
Counsel, spent RCW 10.101 funds on a defense investigator.

21

•

San Juan County spent RCW 10.101 funds for a social worker to assist contract
public defense attorneys.

•

Skamania County spent RCW 10.101 funds to increase investigative and expert
services.

In addition to the original appropriation totaling $3 million annually in RCW
10.101 funds, the 2007 Legislature appropriated another annual amount of $3.5 million,
effective in fiscal year 2008. During the fall of 2007, 38 counties again submitted
applications to OPD pursuant to the process set forth in RCW 10.101.050. These
counties anticipate spending these funds to expand upon the progress noted above.
As discussed earlier, OPD will be fulfilling the agency’s technical assistance and
monitoring functions during 2008 by visiting each county to work with local officials in
developing plans and performance goals for their continued use of state public defense
improvement funding.
APPLICATIONS FOR CITY PUBLIC DEFENSE IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
In addition to establishing the county funding program, RCW 10.101 sets aside
10 percent of the legislative appropriation to be allocated through a competitive grant
program for city public defense programs in municipal courts. In the first year, the
number of cities eligible for the grants was statutorily limited to five, so most of the 33
city applications could not be accepted.
The five cities that were awarded grants implemented the following public
defense improvements:
•

Auburn used RCW 10.101 grant funds to hire an investigator.

•

Cheney used RCW 10.101 grant funds to provide counsel at arraignment, first
appearance, and return-on-warrant hearings.

•

Lynnwood used RCW 10.101 grant funds to provide counsel at in-custody
arraignment hearings.

•

Spokane used RCW 10.101 grant funds to provide counsel at non-domestic
violence arraignment hearings and in-custody preliminary appearance calendars.
(The city had already been providing counsel at domestic violence arraignments.)

22

•

Yakima used RCW 10.101 grant funds to contract with a new public defense
private firm in order to reduce caseloads, eliminate the use of subcontract public
defenders, provide counsel at all stages of proceedings, and provide for an
independent appellate attorney to review the trial proceedings.

Through the additional legislative appropriation in 2007, the annualized city grant
amount has been increased to $628,416. The 2007 Legislature also repealed the cap
on the number of cities eligible for grants. In December 2007, 14 cities were awarded
grants for use during calendar year 2008, including Bellingham, Centralia, Cheney, Des
Moines, East Wenatchee, Longview, Medical Lake, Olympia, Spokane, Spokane Valley,
Tacoma, Vancouver, Wapato and Yakima.

23

COUNTY REPORT
Introduction
Across the state, the county public defense systems vary widely. Except for the
smallest, all counties have a primary public defense system and a method of appointing
of other attorneys for conflict cases. Twelve counties have public defender offices that
are part of county government or are non-profit offices, three counties appoint attorneys
from a list, and twenty-four counties contract with independent private attorneys or firms
to provide public defense or have a system combining both contracts and list
appointments:
•
•
•
•
•

Public defender agencies are county-funded agencies or non-profit groups that
contract with the jurisdiction to provide representation.
Contract public defense systems are systems in which the county enters into
contracts with one or more private attorneys to provide representation.
Public defense coordinators operate in four counties to improve the overall
quality of representation services and monitor public defense attorneys.
List appointment systems involve lists of attorneys who have agreed to accept
public defense cases and are appointed by the court on a case by case basis.
Conflict appointments of alternate attorneys are made by judges when the
initially appointed public defense attorney is prohibited by ethics rules from
representing an individual defendant, usually due to prior representation of
another party in the case.

Because of the individualized nature of Washington’s 39 different public defense
systems, making comparisons is challenging. However, RCW 10.101 application data
and the counties’ 2006 contracts yield important information about actual public defense
practice in Washington.
Pend
Oreille

Whatcom
San
Juan
Gray: Public Defender Office
White: Public Defense Contracts
or List Appointments
Speckled: Public Defense
Coordinators

Ferry

Okanogan
Skagit
Island

Clallam

Stevens
Snohomish
Chelan
Douglas

Jefferson
Kitsap

King

Lincoln

Spokane

Mason
Grant

Grays
Harbor

Kittitas

Whitman

Thurston Pierce

Adams

Pacific
Yakima

Lewis

Garfield

Franklin

Columbia

Cowlitz

Skamania

Benton

Wahkiakum
Klickitat
Clark

24

Walla
Walla

Asotin

Methodology and data reporting
This county report presents information on funding and caseload levels in the
individual counties. Thirty-eight counties submitted RCW 10.101.050 applications.
Each applying county provided 2006 data regarding public defense assignments and
costs of public defense. OPD reviewed the data provided, consulted with the counties
where questions arose, and used the information to prepare this report.5
Initial data from the counties varied widely due to differing case-counting and
reporting practices. There is no standard method; systems differ, sometimes even
within individual counties. Some are based on “points” or “credits” rather than cases,
while others assign differing values to certain case types.
The manner in which jurisdictions deal with post-conviction hearings such as
probation violations (PVs) also impacts caseload calculations.6 Generally, PVs are less
time-consuming than new cases. Some counties count PVs as a case; some do not
count or report them at all; and others count them as a fraction of a case (often onethird).
Methods of accounting for and tracking cases assigned to these public defense
providers are as varied as the systems. For example, many counties rely on the
attorneys to cover all cases assigned and do not have any system for tracking the
number of assigned cases; some counties lump together juvenile offender and Becca
cases assigned to public defenders and some counties do not. Similarly, the tracking of
dollars spent on public defense is varied, and includes different elements from county to
county. These variations make a comparative analysis challenging and some
conclusions tentative. Nevertheless, the data gathered during the RCW 10.101
application process presents a valuable picture of public defense statewide.
In preparing the county data reports that follow, OPD used information submitted
as part of the county applications and data from the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) caseload reports. OPD’s public defense service managers contacted the
counties to clarify and augment data where necessary. After the county data reports
were prepared, they were sent to the counties for review. Each county had an
opportunity to make additional county comments and input to the final product. County
staff members were gracious and generous with their time during this process, and this
report would not have been possible without their help.

5

See Appendix A: Application for Public Defense Funding.
Probation Violations (PVs) are proceedings in which convicted persons on probation are accused of noncompliance with their conditions of probation. Because these individuals are subject to further sanctions, including
incarceration, they are eligible for court-appointed counsel.
25

6

Glossary
County Profile
2006 Population: Total county population as reported in the Washington State Office of
Financial Management April 1-Population of Cities, Town, and Counties publication.
Percent below poverty level: Percent of county population below the federal poverty
level as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. For most counties the 2006
information was included, however, for some counties the information was not available
so the 2003 information was used.
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution: The county’s allocation of the RCW 10.101 funds
appropriation, as determined by the statutory distribution formula. The 2007
distributions occurred in December 2007, and are being used during calendar year
2008.
I.

2006 Statistics
1. Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population: The total number of new trial
level adult felony and misdemeanor criminal cases (including misdemeanors filed
in municipal courts), as reported by the AOC divided by the county population as
expressed in thousands.
2. Amount spent for public defense: The county-reported total dollar amount spent
for public defense representation during 2006.
3. Amount spent per capita: The county-reported total dollar amount spent for
public defense representation divided by the total county population. Caution:
the amount spent per capita is not directly comparable county to county. This
per capita amount is influenced by a number of variables, including geography,
the number of cases filed, the number of major cases filed, the number of
attorneys practicing in the county, local attorney availability and the county’s
poverty and case filing rates.

II. Adult felony
1. New adult superior court cases filed: The number of new (non-probation
violation) adult Superior Court cases filed during 2006 as reported by the AOC.
2. New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population: The number of new adult
Superior Court cases filed divided by the county population as expressed in
thousands.
3. Number of new cases assigned to counsel: The county-reported number of new
adult Superior Court cases assigned to public defense counsel during 2006.
4. Percent of new cases assigned to counsel: Total new adult Superior Court cases
filed divided by the county-reported number of new cases assigned to counsel
and expressed as a percentage.

26

III. Adult misdemeanor
1. New county misdemeanor cases filed: The number of new (non-probation
violation) District Court cases filed during 2006 as reported by the AOC.
2. Total new misdemeanor cases filed in county: The total number of new
misdemeanor (non-felony) cases filed in all courts in the county, including
municipal courts, during 2006 as reported by the AOC.
3. Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population: The total number of new
misdemeanor cases filed during 2006 divided by the county population as
expressed in thousands.
4. Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county: The county-reported
number of new adult District Court cases assigned to public defense counsel
during 2006.
IV. Juvenile offender
1. New juvenile offender cases filed: The number of new (non-probation violation)
juvenile offender cases filed during 2006 as reported by the AOC.
2. New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population: The total number of new
juvenile offender cases filed during 2006 divided by the county population as
expressed in thousands.
3. Number of new cases assigned to counsel: The county-reported number of new
filed juvenile offender cases assigned to public defense counsel during 2006.
Not all juvenile arrests result in juvenile offender cases being filed. Some are
diverted and for some, no action is taken.
4. Percent of new cases assigned to counsel: Total new juvenile offender cases
filed divided by the county-reported number of new cases assigned to counsel
and expressed as a percentage.

27

ADAMS COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

17,300

15.8%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$27,147

Adams County delivers indigent public defense representation through a contract
system. The county contracts with a sole provider who handles 100 percent of the cases in
Superior and District Court. That attorney subcontracts with other providers for overflow
representation and for assumption of a specific portion of the required coverage. In addition, for
all types of conflict cases, the court appoints separate counsel from a list.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

105.4
$319,485
$18.47

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

207
12.0
191
92.3%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,128
1,616
93.4
734

87
5.0
30
34.5

Adams County has adopted a resolution, but has not yet adopted a public defense
standards ordinance. The Adams County public defense contracts require approved annual
training and reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Adams County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increasing expert and
interpreter services for the public defense attorney. The county plans to use 2007 funds for
interpreter services for attorney-client interviews and communications.

28

ASOTIN COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

21,100
14.5%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$31,177

Asotin County delivers public defense representation through a contract system. During
2006, virtually all of the contracted public defense services in Asotin County were handled by
two attorneys. In Superior Court, the county contracts with two different attorneys, who are
each responsible for 50 percent of the cases assigned. In District Court, one of the same
providers is responsible for the entire caseload with the exception of conflict cases, for which
the court appoints separate counsel from a list. Juvenile offender and dependency and
termination cases are handled by two attorneys with each accepting 50 percent of the caseload.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

70.8
$214,453
$10.16

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

253
12.0
209
82.6%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

582
1,240
56.4
160

101
4.8
96
95.0%

Asotin County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance.
Asotin County public defenders are required to attend training and report non-public defender
attorney hours.
Asotin County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increasing defense
investigator services, on training, and legal research tools for public defense counsel and plans
to spend the 2007 funds to contract with an additional public defense attorney.

29

BENTON COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

160,600
13.9%
$160,954

Benton County provides public defense representation through a contract system. In
2007 a bi-county (with Franklin County) coordinator position was established to coordinate and
monitor defense contracts, and assist in providing high-quality public defense.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

69.0
$2,171,203
$13.52

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,599
10.0
N/A1
N/A1

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county

9,487
59.1
N/A1

Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

934
5.8
N/A2
N/A2

3,093

Benton County has a public defense resolution and will adopt a public defense
standards ordinance by July, 2008. In addition, the Benton County public defense contracts
require approved annual training and reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Benton County used RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 for consulting on contract
preparation and the development of an indigent defense coordinator position to monitor contract
counsel and to assist in providing indigent defense. The county plans to use 2007 funds to
continue the coordinator position and expand its indigent defense services.

1
The County did not provide individualized caseload totals for each attorney, but instead provided the total maximum
number of cases contracted for, which was greater than the actual number of case filings. Accordingly, the total
number and percentage of new cases assigned to counsel could not be determined.
2
Under the Benton and Franklin counties bi-county panel system, caseload reporting is not differentiated between
counties. Accordingly, the number and percentage of new cases assigned to counsel and assigned per FTE could
not be determined.

30

CHELAN COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

70,100
10.8%
$79,262

In 2007 Chelan County switched from a contract for services model to a non-profit
agency model. Chelan County now contracts with the Counsel for Defense in Chelan County
for public defense services. In 2008 the new non-profit public defense agency plans on adding
another attorney to reduce caseload.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

70.2
$1,070,559
$15.27

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

773
11.0
668
86.4%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,392
4,149
59.2
792

500
7.1
N/A1
N/A1

Chelan County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the
Chelan County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of nonpublic defense attorney hours.
Chelan County used RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 for the transitional and
increased expenses of the newly established non-profit public defense agency. The county
plans to use the 2007 increase to add an additional full-time attorney.

1

The County reported a total maximum number of cases which was greater than the actual number of case filings.
Accordingly, the total number and percentage of new cases assigned to counsel could not be determined.
31

CLALLAM COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

67,800
14.9%
$69,082

Clallam County contracts with the Clallam Public Defender, a non-profit corporation, for
public defense representation. The Clallam Public Defender provides direct supervision of
attorneys, in-house investigation services, and resolution of client complaints. The Clallam
County courts appoint supplemental private investigators on a case-by-case basis. Conflict
counsel is appointed by the courts from a list of attorneys.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita
Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel
Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

52.3
$873,318.47
$12.88

599
8.8
577 (plus 48 PVs)
96.3%

1,495
2,947
43.5
531

352
5.2
311
88.3%

Clallam County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance. The
Clallam County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of nonpublic defense attorney hours.
Clallam County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on purchasing new office
equipment and computer upgrades for public defense attorneys, and it increased the contract
compensation for defense attorneys and staff. The county anticipates using 2007 funds to
increase attorney and support staff, training, with a commensurate increase in office space,
equipment/resources, and increase in attorneys’ and staff’s compensation.

32

CLARK COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

403,500
10.0%
$309,299

Clark County delivers indigent public defense representation through a contract system.
In 2007, an indigent defense coordinator was hired to oversee the public defense contracting
system, monitor the contracts and provide assistance to improve the level of public defense
services. OPD continues to work closely with the coordinator to implement best practices in the
largest county to contract with private counsel to provide public defense services.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita
Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of felony cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel
Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

47.1
$3,876,349
$9.61

2,477
6.1
2,477 (plus 2,237 PVs)
100%

7,723
16,514
40.9
3645

1,408
3.5
1,408 (plus 1,011 PVs)
100%

Clark County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the Clark
County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of non-public
defense attorney hours.
Clark County used RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 to hire an indigent defense
coordinator and a support staff person to oversee the public defense contract system. The
county plans to use 2007 funds to continue funding for an indigent defense coordinator and one
support staff, add an additional FTE attorney in district court in order to reduce overall case
loads, and increase investigator funding.

33

COLUMBIA COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

4,100
11.9%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$12,503

Columbia County delivers public defense services through a contract system. During
2007, the county contracted with two different attorneys for public defense representation; each
contract specified that the attorney is responsible for 50 percent of all case types assigned, paid
on a monthly basis.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent on public defense
Amount spent per capita

59.5
$ 97,714
$23.83

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

35
8.5
33
94.2%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

120
209
51.0
102

20
4.9
19
95%

Columbia is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance. The
Columbia County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of
non-public defense attorney hours.
Columbia County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increasing defense
attorney compensation. The county intends to use 2007 funds for additional investigative
services.

34

COWLITZ COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

96,800
16.3%
$138,865

Cowlitz County began the process of moving from a contract system to a county public
defender agency. The county currently uses a mixed system, maintaining some of the existing
contracts for the next five years as it phases in the new agency. The Cowlitz County Office of
Public Defense provides representation to indigent clients in felony, misdemeanor and juvenile
matters.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

86.6
$1,664,541
$17.20

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,687
17.4
1,6461
N/A1

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,436
6,698
69.2
1347

577
6.0
577
100%

Cowlitz County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the
Cowlitz County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of nonpublic defense attorney hours.
Cowlitz County used RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 to establish a county Office
of Public Defense to deliver indigent representation. The county plans to use 2007 funds to
expand the services offered by the county’s Office of Public Defense, including the provision of
counsel at arraignments in district court.

1

The case total reported included probation violation accordingly, the percentage of new cases assigned to public
defense counsel could not be determined.
35

DOUGLAS COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

35,700
11.9%

(2006 information is not available)

2006 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$0

Douglas County did not participate in the RCW 10.101 funding application process.
Accordingly, financial data and information relating to the amount spent for public defense
services or the number and percentage of new cases assigned to counsel was not available.
The number of new cases filed is derived from the Office of the Administrator of the Courts case
filings report.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita
Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel
Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
Cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

36

50.0

279
7.8

760
1,507
42.2

204
5.7

FERRY COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

7,500
16.6%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$14,140

Ferry County administers public defense representation through a contract system. One
attorney provides representation to all indigent adults and juveniles in Superior Court except
conflicts and acts as the conflict attorney for District Court cases. Another attorney provides
representation to all indigent defendants for District Court cases and acts as the conflict attorney
for Superior Court cases.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

31.2
$235,520
$31.40

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

39
5.2
31
79.5%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county

195
26.0
108

Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

15
2.0
9
60.0%

162

Ferry County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance. The
Ferry County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of nonpublic defense attorney hours.
Ferry County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 by contracting to provide
defense counsel at preliminary hearings. The three counties in the judicial district, Stevens,
Ferry, and Pend Oreille, intend to use 2007 funds to increase defense attorneys’ compensation.

37

FRANKLIN COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

64,200
24.9%
$66,302

Franklin County provides public defense representation through a contract system. In
2007 the county used the RCW 10.101 funds for consulting on contract preparation and
development of a bi-county (with Benton County) indigent defense coordinator position to
monitor contract counsel and to assist in providing indigent defense.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

66.5
$499,676
$7.78

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

575
9.0
356
61.9%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,292
3,692
57.5
450

344
5.3
N/A1
N/A1

Franklin County has adopted a public defense resolution and plans to adopt an
ordinance. The Franklin County public defense contracts require approved annual training and
reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Franklin County used RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 to establish the bi-county
indigent defense coordinator position to oversee the public defense contracts, monitor the
contracts and provide assistance to improve the level of public defense in Franklin County and
Benton County. The county plans to use 2007 funds to continue the coordinator position and
expand its indigent defense services.
1

Under the Benton and Franklin Counties bi-county panel system, caseload reporting is not differentiated between
counties. Accordingly, the number and percentage of new cases assigned to counsel could not be determined.

38

GARFIELD COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

2,400
11.3%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$10,572

Garfield County provides public defense representation through a contract with one
attorney who is responsible for 100 percent of the cases in all of the county courts except
conflict cases. The court uses a list of attorneys for appointment in conflict cases at an hourly
rate of $75.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

100
$32,737
$13.64

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

12
5.0
12
100%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

228
228
95.0
55

6
2.5
4
66.7%

Garfield County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance. The
Garfield County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of nonpublic defense attorney hours.
Garfield County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increasing defense
attorneys’ compensation.

39

GRANT COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

80,600
21.7%
$88,378

Grant County has developed a consortium of individually contracted attorneys to provide
public defense representation. A supervising public defender oversees the consortium.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

82.5
$2,485,131
$30.83

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel
New cases assigned per contract

862
10.7
NA1
NA1
150

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile Offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

5,789
5,789
82.5%
3,621

396
4.9
394
99.0%

Grant County has adopted a public defense standards resolution and the Grant County
public defense contracts require approved annual training.
Grant County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on paying for investigators for
public defense attorneys, providing interpreters for attorney-client meetings, and on hiring more
defense attorneys to reduce caseloads. The county plans to use 2007 funds to increase public
defender compensation and either add defense attorneys to lower public defense caseloads or
set up “in-house” investigators for indigent defense.

1

The number of reported new cases appears to include probation violations and other miscellaneous hearings
assigned. Therefore, the number and percent of new cases were not available.
2
This data reflects conditions pre-pilot. For detailed information about the OPD pilot, see page 7.

40

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

70,400
17.8%
$78,275

Grays Harbor County provides public defense representation through contracts with 17
attorneys handling adult felony cases, one attorney handling juvenile offender cases, and seven
handling district court cases.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

110.3
$904,872
$12.85

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

752
10.7
698
92.8%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

3,098
7,011
99.6
1,321

328
4.7
328
100%

Grays Harbor County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards
ordinance. The Grays Harbor County public defense contracts require approved annual
training.
Grays Harbor County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 contracting with a
juvenile conflict attorney and increasing compensation for public defense attorneys. The county
plans to use 2007 funds to contract with juvenile conflict attorneys and increase compensation
for public defense attorneys handling major felonies.

41

ISLAND COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

77,200
8.3%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$57,240

Island County delivers public defense representation through a mixed system,
contracting with a single law firm to provide virtually all criminal defense services and using list
appointments for conflict and other specific case types. The primary contract totaled $360,000
in base fees in 2007. Conflict and other appointments are compensated according to a
published county public defense fee schedule.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

33.6
$570,809
$7.39

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

301
3.9
300
99.7%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
Juvenile offender cases filed
Juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,507
2,292
29.7
569

151
2.0
N/A1
N/A1

Island County has a public defense standards resolution and is in the process of
adopting a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the Island County public defense
contracts require approved annual training and reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Island County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on providing defense
counsel at preliminary appearance calendars. The county plans to use 2007 funds to continue
to fund the representation at first appearance hearings. Any residual funds will be used to
increase the use of conflict attorneys’ services in order to reduce the caseload of the county’s
primary public defense provider.

1

The case totals reported appear to include probation violations; accordingly, the percentage of new cases assigned
to counsel could not be determined.
42

JEFFERSON COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

28,200
11.0%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 Distribution:

$32,353

Jefferson County contracts with Jefferson Associated Counsel, a nonprofit corporation,
for all public defense representation. The office director provides direct supervision for the
attorneys and is responsible for handling client complaints. Some investigative services are
provided by support staff; the balance is provided by private investigators appointed by the court
on a case-by-case basis. The court appoints conflict counsel from a list of private attorneys.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

56.8
$204,475
$7.25

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

219
7.8
174 (plus 16 PVs)
79.5%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel:

1,041
1,384
49.1
688 (plus 111 PVs)

81
2.9
77 (plus 28 PVs)
95.1%

Jefferson County has adopted a resolution and is in the process of creating a public
defense standards ordinance. The Jefferson County public defense contract requires approved
annual training and reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Jefferson County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring a public defense
investigator. The county plans to use 2007 funds to enhance investigative services.

43

KING COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

1,835,300
9.5%
$1,354,830

King County administers public defense representation through the King County Office
of the Public Defender, a county agency which contracts for direct client services with four nonprofit public defense agencies: Associated Counsel for the Accused (ACA), Society of Counsel
Representing Accused Persons (SCRAP), The Defender Association (TDA) and Northwest
Defender Association (NDA) to provide 90 percent of public defense services. Ten percent of
public defense services (for conflict cases) are provided through an assigned counsel panel
composed of private attorneys accepting assignments on an hourly basis.
The King County Office of the Public Defender provides funding for these agencies that
includes salaries and benefits for attorneys, supervisors and professional and clerical support
staff including investigators, social workers and paralegals; administrative overhead including
equipment and operational costs; rent allocations; and calendar costs per specific calendar
assignments. The contract agencies are budgeted for attorney salaries, exclusive of benefits, at
parity with the King County Prosecutor Office employees. Expert and other extraordinary case
related expenses not included in the contracts are paid by the county upon written request to
the Office of the Public Defender.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

43.3
$36,017,479
$19.62

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

10,883
5.9
9,889 (plus 1,499 PVs)
90.9%

Adult Misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

44

17,696
68,562
37.4
7,384 (plus 1,604 PVs)

4,173
2.3
4153 (plus 1,336 PVs)
99.5%

The King County Council has adopted an ordinance which sets compensation and
caseload standards for contract public defenders. In addition, the King County public defense
contracts require approved training and reporting of public defender hours. Contractor agencies
who contract with the King County Office of the Public Defender must be non-profit corporations
established solely for the purpose of providing public defense services.
King County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increasing pay for assigned
counsel, hiring a program manager to improve quality control, and training programs in public
defense services in King County. The county plans to use 2007 funds to continue these efforts
and lower caseloads.

45

KITSAP COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

243,400
8.6%
$209,070

Kitsap County administers public defense representation by contracting with different
firms in each of several practice areas. Each contract has a specific caseload limit and is paid
according to a published public defense fee schedule. All conflict cases are list appointed and
compensated according to the published fee schedule.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

48.4
$3,052,181
$12.54

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,852
7.6
1,791
96.7%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
Juvenile offender cases filed
Juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

6,405
9,919
40.8
2,915

1,012
4.2
739
73.0%

Kitsap County has adopted a public defense standards resolution. In addition, the
Kitsap County public defense contracts will require approved annual training and reporting of
non-public defense attorney hours as they are renewed.
Kitsap County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring a consultant to
review the county’s public defense system, on purchasing cell phones for after-hours attorneys,
on-line access for public defenders at juvenile court, and Lexis-Nexis research programs for all
public defense attorneys. The county plans to use 2007 funds on implementing
recommendations from the consultant retained last year.

46

KITTITAS COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

37,400
13.4%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$44,049

Kittitas County delivers public defense representation solely through list appointment.
Contracts are utilized only in extraordinary circumstances such as specific serious felonies.
Appointed attorneys are paid at a published rate per case unless otherwise authorized. For
Lower Kittitas District Court, one attorney contracts for all the indigent defense cases.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

94.0
$303,679
$8.12

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

367
9.8
216 (plus 15 PVs)
58.9%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,835
3,149
74.2
684

138
3.7
125 (plus 8 PVs)
91.0%

Kittitas County has adopted a public defense standards court rule and is in the process
of adopting a public defense standards ordinance. The Kittitas County treasurer is holding 2006
and 2007 10.101 funds in reserve until the county adopts a public defense standards ordinance.
In addition, Kittitas County public defense attorneys are required to attend approved annual
training.

47

KLICKITAT COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

19,800
14.5%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$28,937

Klickitat County administers public defense representation using one contract signed by
three attorneys for all Superior Court matters. The contract specifies that the three attorneys
will provide 100 percent of indigent defense services in adult felony, juvenile offender and other
specific juvenile case types.
The county has two separate district courts; defense services in each court were
provided for by separate contract requiring those attorneys to accept 100 percent of the cases
assigned. Conflict cases in all courts are handled through list appointment by the court.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

63.4
$258,786
$13.07

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

221
11.2
221
100%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

669
1,035
52.3
359

137
6.9
137
100%

Klickitat County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance.

48

LEWIS COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

72,900
12.4%
$84,196

Lewis County administers public defense representation through a mixed contract and
list appointment system. The county contracts with 10 attorneys for adult felony cases and
seven attorneys for juvenile offender cases. The District Court maintains a list of six private
attorneys for appointment on a case-by-case basis. Some attorneys accept more than one
case type.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

72.8
$1,080,512
$14.82

Adult Felony
New adult superior court cases filed:
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

844
11.6
N/A1
N/A1

Adult Misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile Offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,397
4,463
61.2
1,352

311
4.3
239 (plus 141 PVs)
76.8%

Lewis County has developed an indigent defense plan and adopted a public defense
standards ordinance. Lewis County public defense contracts require approved annual training
and reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Lewis County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on providing defense counsel
at initial appearance calendars. The county plans to use 2007 funds to continue hiring defense
counsel for superior and district court initial appearance hearings, and to provide court
appointed special case attorneys and investigative services for juvenile court.

1

The County reported felony “units” as opposed to cases assigned to counsel so the number and percent of new
cases assigned to counsel could not be determined.
49

LINCOLN COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

10,200
13.5%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$16,067

Lincoln County administers public defense representation using a mixed system. Public
defense representation for adult misdemeanors is handled through a contract with one attorney.
Counsel is provided through list appointment for conflict cases, adult felony, juvenile offender,
and all other Superior Court case types.
2006Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

61.8
$74,345
$7.29

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

54
5.3
36
66.7%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

575
576
56.5
188

29
2.8
16
55.2%

Lincoln County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. The Lincoln County
public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting of non-public defense
attorney hours.
Lincoln County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on compensation increases
for its public defense attorneys, and on providing AOC software for public defense attorneys.
The county plans to use 2007 funds to increase superior court public defense attorneys’
compensation, pay expenses for public defense training, and provide investigative services for
district court cases.

50

MASON COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

53,100
11.9%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.010 distribution:

$61,118

Mason County delivers public defense representation through a contract system. Each
contract attorney is responsible for a specific court or case type under a stated caseload limit.
Two juvenile offender contracts provide that each attorney may accept no more than 250 cases
per year for a contract capacity of 500 cases. One attorney has a contract to provide
representation in all District Court cases in the county. Conflict counsel is list appointed by the
court.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

61.9
$589,870
$11.11

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

565
10.6
375
66.4%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases file
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county

2,724
51.3
850

Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

255
4.8
255
100%

2,023

Mason County has adopted a public defense standards policy and is in the process of
adopting a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the Mason County public defense
contracts require approved annual training and reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Mason County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on training and increases in
compensation for public defense attorneys.

51

OKANOGAN COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

39,800
18.7%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$46,803

Okanogan County delivers public defense representation through a contract system with
four primary attorneys. The county executed one contract with those attorneys for coverage of
all indigent defense cases in the County.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

71.6
$754,418
$18.96

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

400
10.1
335
83.8%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district or municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,448
2,450
61.6
2,1041

344
8.6
272
79.1%

Okanogan County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance.
The Okanogan County public defense contracts require approved annual training.
Okanogan County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring an additional
public defense attorney to help reduce caseloads. The county plans to use 2007 funds to
continue and expand the efforts started last year.

1

The total number of cases reported as assigned to public defense counsel in Okanogan County District Court
includes probation violations.
52

PACIFIC COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

21,500
Not Available

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$33,145

Pacific County provides indigent defense representation through a contract system.
Attorneys contract for a percentage of cases in a specific court. This system is used for each
court level.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

95.9
$270,866
12.60

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

287
13.3
N/A1
N/A1

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,032
1,775
82.6
354

141
6.6
126
89.3%

The Pacific County new and renewing public defense contracts require approved annual
training and reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Pacific County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on compensation increases
for its contract public defense attorneys. The county plans to use 2007 funds to implement its
public defense standards.

1

The number and percent of new cases that were assigned to counsel could not be determined.
53

PEND OREILLE COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

12,300
15.0%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.010 distribution:

$18,960

Pend Oreille County provides public defense representation through a contract with
three associated attorneys handling 100 percent of the caseload except conflicts.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

58.7
$165,000
$13.41

Adult felonies
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

92
7.5
86
93.5%

Adult misdemeanors
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

449
630
51.2
381

45
3.7
33
73.3%

Pend Oreille County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance.
The Pend Oreille County public defense contracts require approved annual training and new or
renewed public defense contracts will require reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Pend Oreille County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on providing counsel
at preliminary hearings. The three counties in the judicial district, Stevens, Ferry and Pend
Oreille, intend to use 2007 funds to increase defense attorneys’ compensation.

54

PIERCE COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

773,500
11.5%
$658,382

Pierce County provides public defense representation through a county agency, the
Department of Assigned Counsel (DAC). DAC employees receive salary and benefits in parity
with the Pierce County Prosecutor Office employees. DAC maintains felony, misdemeanor and
juvenile divisions and others related to civil practice areas. Each division has a senior
supervising attorney. These supervisors, along with DAC’s director, and chief deputy, provide
supervision and oversight of staff attorneys and are responsible for resolving client complaints.
The agency provides investigative services through a panel of pre-approved investigators.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

51.5
$12,992,242
$16.80

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

6,139
7.9
5,414 (plus 5,377 PVs)
88.2%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

12,175
33,720
43.6
5,021 (plus 7,763 PVs)
2,469
3.2
2,128 (plus 1,152 PVs)
86.2%

Pierce County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the
Pierce County DAC requires approved annual training.
Pierce County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring additional attorneys
to reduce caseloads. The county plans to use 2007 funds to hire an additional attorney and
legal assistant and purchase technology/resources.

55

SAN JUAN COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

15,700
8.5%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$18,744

San Juan County delivers public defense representation through a contract with one
attorney for representation in Superior and District Court and a contract with a different attorney
for juvenile offenders. The contracts use a case weighting system and provide compensation at
a specific point value per case.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

33.5
$204,100
$13

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

61
3.9
48 (13 + PVs)
78.7%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

465
465
29.6
150

21
1.3
N/A1
N/A1

San Juan County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance.
The San Juan County public defense contracts require approved annual training and reporting
of non-public defense attorney hours.
San Juan County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring a social worker
to assist the public defense attorneys. The county plans to use 2007 funds for the continued
employment of a social worker and to increase counsel at regularly scheduled initial appearance
calendars for district court.

1

The number and percent of new cases that were assigned to counsel could not be determined.
56

SKAGIT COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

113,100
14.1%
$107,884

Skagit County delivers public defense representation through the Skagit County Public
Defender, a county agency. The agency‘s director and chief deputy are responsible for
supervision of staff attorneys and resolution of client complaints. Investigative services are
provided in-house. Skagit County also contracts with law firms for mental health, involuntary
commitment, and district court additional public defense representation.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent on public defense
Amount spent per capita

79.1
$1,221,037
$10.79

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

973
8.6
N/A1
N/A2

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

4,412
7,972
70.5
1,686

444
3.9
N/A1
N/A2

Skagit County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the
Skagit County Public Defender agency requires approved annual training.
Skagit County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring an additional
defense attorney and an investigator. The county plans to use 2007 funds to hire an additional
felony attorney and a felony staff support person.

1

This total exceeds new cases filed because the county tracks the number of “case referrals to counsel.” Upon a
defendant’s failure to appear and the issuance of a bench warrant, a previously referred case may be tracked as
being referred to counsel on more than one occasion.
2
Since individual cases may be referred to counsel on multiple occasions, the percent of new cases assigned to
counsel could not be determined.

57

SKAMANIA COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

10,600
10.9%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution

$20,260

Skamania County delivers superior court, including juvenile offender, indigent defense
representation through one contract with two different attorneys. A single contract also provides
representation in district court for all assigned cases. When a conflict is identified, counsel is
appointed from a list.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

120.5
$82,800
$7.81

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

130
12.3
130
100%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,067
1,147
108.2
293

47
4.4
47
100%

The Skamania County public defense contracts require approved annual training and
reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Skamania County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increasing funds for
defense investigation and expert services. The county plans to use 2007 funds for expert
witness and investigator fees and for defense attorney training.

58

SNOHOMISH COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

671,800
7.6%
$471,259

Snohomish County provides public defense representation in adult criminal cases in
both Superior and District Court through a contract with the Snohomish County Public Defender
Association (PDA), a non-profit corporation. PDA is managed by a director, an assistant director
and a misdemeanor supervisor who are responsible for attorney supervision and resolution of
client complaints. PDA provides investigative services in-house.
The county contracts with the PDA and one private law firm to handle juvenile offender
cases. Conflicts are appointed from a list.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

52.2
$6,384,399
$9.50

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

3,411
5.1
2,737 (plus 985 PVs)
80.2%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

12,982
31,659
47.1
7,936
1,694
2.5
1,357 (plus 1,154 PVs)
80.1%

Snohomish County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. In addition, the
Snohomish County public defense contract requires approved annual training.
Snohomish County used RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 to award the primary
contract for juvenile court representation to the Snohomish County Public Defender Association.
Previously, juvenile cases had been handled by individual contract attorneys and law firms. The
county also funded an investigator, social worker and secretary for the public defender agency.
The county plans to use 2007 funds to pay for attorneys and staff at the public defender agency
to reduce caseloads.

59

SPOKANE COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

443,800
13.3%
$463,581

Spokane County provides public defense representation through two separate county
agencies, the Spokane County Public Defender and Counsel for Defense. Employees of both
agencies are compensated in parity with Spokane County Prosecutor Office employees. Each
agency is managed by a director who is responsible for attorney supervision and resolution of
client complaints. Both provide investigative services in-house. The Spokane County Public
Defender is the primary agency and handles Superior and District Court cases; Counsel for
Defense handles the majority of Superior Court conflict cases. The primary agency also
maintains a list of attorneys available to handle Superior Court cases that present a conflict of
interest for both agencies. Most District Court conflicts are handled through an inter-local
agreement providing that the Public Defender and the City of Spokane Public Defender accept
each other’s conflicts.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

65.1
$4,741,195
$10.68

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

5,071
11.4
4,469 (plus 343 PVs)
88.1%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned counsel by county

23,822
53.7
5,950 (plus 1,312 PVs)

Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,630
3.7
1,560 (plus 680 PVs)
95.7%

8,567

Spokane County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. The Spokane
County public defense agencies require approved annual training.
Spokane County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring two public
defense attorneys and support staff to reduce misdemeanor caseloads. The county plans to
use 2007 funds to hire two additional attorneys to appear at misdemeanor arraignments and
initial appearances, as well as additional staff as funds allow.

60

STEVENS COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

42,100
14.6%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$41,517

Stevens County provides public defense representation through a contract with an
association of five attorneys to provide services for all indigent adults in District and Superior
Courts. Juvenile matters are handled by contracts with four additional attorneys. Conflicts in all
cases are handled through list appointment.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

41.8
$418,215
$9.93

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

282
6.7
235 (plus 71 PVs)
83.3%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of cases assigned to counsel

931
1,479
35.1
894

211
5.0
133 (plus 45 PVs)
63.0%

Stevens County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance. The
Stevens County public defense contracts require approved annual training and new or renewed
contracts will require reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Stevens County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on providing counsel at
preliminary hearings. The three counties in the judicial district, Stevens, Ferry and Pend Oreille,
intend to use 2007 funds to increase public defense attorneys’ compensation.

61

THURSTON COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

231,100
8.8%
$234,631

Thurston County provides public defense representation through the Thurston County
Office of Assigned Counsel (OAC), a county agency. OAC employees are compensated in
parity with Thurston County Prosecutor Office employees. OAC has three senior defense
attorneys to assist in the supervision of staff and resolution of client complaints. OAC provides
investigative services by contracting with private investigators on a case-by-case basis.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

66.1
$2,417,505
$10.46

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,432
10.5
2,015 (plus 512 PVs)
82.9%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned counsel by county

12,837
55.5
2,238 (plus 492 PVs)

Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,145
5.0
920 (plus 883 PVs)
80.3%

4,978

Thurston County is in the process of adopting a public defense standards ordinance.
The Thurston County public defense agency requires approved annual training.
Thurston County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on providing counsel at all
District Court first appearances. The county plans to use 2007 funds to continue first
appearance representation and to pay for reduced attorney caseloads.

62

WAHKIAKUM COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

3,900
8.9%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$12,578

Wahkiakum County delivers public defense representation, including all felony,
misdemeanor, juvenile offender, and probation violations, solely through list appointment.
Attorneys on the court’s list are not under contract although they have agreed to accept the
appointments.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

47.2
$64,196
$16.46

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

38
9.7
36
94.7%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

146
146
37.4
46

12
3.1
12
100%

The Wahkiakum County public defense attorneys are required to attend approved
annual training.
Wahkiakum County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increased
compensation for its public defense attorneys. The county plans to use 2007 funds for court
appointed attorneys.

63

WALLA WALLA COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

57,900
14.0%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$58,787

Walla Walla County delivers public defense representation through a contract system.
Seven attorneys contract for indigent public defense services. Conflict cases are distributed
through list appointments.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

51.4
$514,826
$8.89

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

483
8.3
378
78.3%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,105
2,495
43.1
349

264
4.6
N/A1
N/A1

Walla Walla County has adopted a public defense standards resolution. Walla Walla
County public defense contracts require approved annual training and the reporting of nonpublic defense attorney hours.
Walla Walla spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on increasing public defense
attorneys’ compensation.

1

The number and percent of new cases that were assigned to counsel could not be determined.

64

WHATCOM COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

184,300
14.9%
$184,767

Whatcom County provides public defense representation through the Whatcom County
Public Defender, a county agency. Public Defender employees are compensated in parity with
the Whatcom County Prosecutor Office employees. The agency director is responsible for
attorney supervision and the resolution of client complaints. The agency employs in-house staff
for investigative services. Whatcom County also contracts with 18 attorneys for conflict cases.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

65.7
$3,430,805
$18.62

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

1,861
10.1
N/A1
N/A1

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

4,695
10,250
55.6
2,000 (plus 297 PVs)

633
3.4
N/A1
N/A1

Whatcom County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. The Whatcom
County public defense agency requires approved annual training.
Whatcom County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring an additional
defense attorney to reduce caseloads. The county plans to use 2007 funds to reduce
caseloads.

1

The reported number of new cases assigned to the public defenders exceeds the number of new cases filed as
reported by AOC; accordingly, the percent of new cases assigned to counsel could not be determined.
65

WHITMAN COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2003:

42,800
15.8%

(2006 information is not available)

2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

$40,910

Whitman County delivers public defense representation through two separate contracts,
both with the same law firm. One contract is for all Superior Court cases, including adult felony,
juvenile offender, and other specific case types; the second contract covers district court cases.
Conflict cases are handled through list appointments.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

58.2
$292,000
$6.82

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

265
6.2
141
53.2%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

2,137
2,228
52.1
518

104
2.4
66
63.5%

Whitman County is in the process of enacting a public defense standards ordinance. In
addition, Whitman County public defense contracts require approved annual training and
reporting of non-public defense attorney hours.
Whitman County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring an additional
defense attorney and an investigator, and increasing expert funds. The county plans to use
2007 funds to increase funding for counsel in conflict cases and further enhance expert and
investigative services.

66

YAKIMA COUNTY
2006 Population:
Percent below poverty level in 2006:
2007 RCW 10.101 distribution:

231,800
21.1%
$269,720

Yakima County delivers public defense representation through the Yakima County
Department of Assigned Counsel (DAC), a county agency. The agency’s director and senior
staff attorneys are responsible for attorney supervision and resolution of client complaints. DAC
provides counsel in all cases requiring representation, including criminal cases, mental
health/involuntary treatment act detentions, civil contempt, and felony and misdemeanor
probation violations. DAC administers contracts and panels of attorneys who provide both
overflow and conflict coverage.
DAC handles investigative services through two in-house investigators, who are also
available to contract counsel, and through a panel of contract investigators; interpreter services
are available through an approved list of providers managed by DAC.
2006 Statistics
Total adult criminal cases per 1,000 population
Amount spent for public defense
Amount spent per capita

85.1
$4,542,305
$19.60

Adult felony
New adult superior court cases filed
New adult superior court cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

3,089
13.3
2,724
88.2%

Adult misdemeanor
New county misdemeanor cases filed
Total new district and municipal court misdemeanor
cases filed in county (See Glossary page 22.)
Total new misdemeanor cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel by county
Juvenile offender
New juvenile offender cases filed
New juvenile offender cases per 1,000 population
Number of new cases assigned to counsel
Percent of new cases assigned to counsel

4,902
16,645
71.8
3,279

1,778
7.7
1,304
73.3

Yakima County has adopted a public defense standards ordinance. The Yakima County
public defender agency requires approved annual training.
Yakima County spent RCW 10.101 funds distributed in 2006 on hiring an additional
defense attorney to reduce caseloads, and increasing pay for contract public defenders. The
county plans to use 2007 funds to further enhance the improvements started last year.

67

Appendix A

68

Internet Email: opd@opd.wa.gov

WASHINGTON STATE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE

TO:

County Officials

FROM:

Joanne Moore, Director

DATE:

August 6, 2007

RE:

Procedure for applying for public defense funding

(360) 586-3164
FAX (360) 586-8165

Applying for County Public Defense Funding
RCW 10.101.050 allows counties to apply for their pro rata share of appropriated funds to
improve the quality of public defense services for juveniles and adults. We are pleased to
announce that the additional funding available for counties in 2008 will more than double the
amount distributed for 2007. Enclosed is an application for public defense funds (the application
is also available at www.opd.wa.gov) and a table of the estimated pro rata share for each county.
The OPD 2008 funding applications are due September 18, 2007. The Washington State Office
of Public Defense (OPD) will notify applicants of RCW 10.101 funding authorization within one
month of receiving the county’s application. Application materials submitted in hard copy
should be three-hole punched. Alternatively, application materials may be submitted as an email
attachment. (No faxes please.)
Under the statute, funds must be used to make appreciable demonstrable improvements in the
delivery of public defense services. It is anticipated that usage of these funds will ordinarily be
determined in consultation with the county courts and public defense attorneys.
Please note RCW 10.101.060 specifies that to qualify for continued funding, counties need to
ensure that well-qualified attorneys handle the most serious cases; that county contracts provide
funding for court-ordered expert and investigator costs and for compensation as ordered by the
court for extraordinary cases; and that counties set up a valid method for appointing conflict
counsel. Most county public defense contracts already meet these requirements. We will be
working with counties in 2008 regarding compliance with RCW 10.101’s requirements.
For information regarding the improvement of public defense services or this application, contact
OPD Public Defense Services Managers George Yeannakis or Colleen O’Connor:
Email: george.yeannakis@opd.wa.gov or colleen.oconnor@opd.wa.gov
Phone: 360-586-3164 ext. 102 (George) or ext. 110 (Colleen)
711 Capitol Way South • Suite 106 • P.O. Box 40957 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0957
69

County___________________Contact name/title______________________________________
Mailing address_________________________________________________________________
Phone_______________________________Email______________________
NOTE: Applications are due September 18, 2007. If for some reason the county needs additional time, please contact OPD to
request an extension.

1. In 2006, attorneys providing indigent defense representation had the following caseloads:
Fill in section 1(a) if the county has a public defender agency, such as a department of assigned counsel
or one or more non-profit public defense firm(s) whose practice is limited to public defense.
Number of new
Number of
Number of fullNumber of cases
1(a) Counties with
probation
time equivalent
assigned to
public defender agencies. cases assigned
to public
defenders

violations and
other
miscellaneous
hearings assigned

public defenders

conflict counsel

Superior Court
adult felonies
District Court adult
misdemeanors and gross
Misdemeanors
Juvenile Court
offender cases
Juvenile Court
dependency/termination
Cases
“Becca” cases (truancy
contempt, at-risk youth,
CHINS)

Fill in section 1(b) if the county contracts with public defense attorneys or if public defense attorneys are
appointed by the court from a list:
Number of new cases
Number of probation
Number of attorneys
1(b) Counties with contract
assigned to
violations and other
with public defense
or list appointed public
public defense
miscellaneous hearings
contracts
defense attorneys
attorneys
assigned
(or on court’s
appointment list)
Superior Court
adult felonies
District Court
adult misdemeanors and gross
misdemeanors
Juvenile Court
offender cases
Juvenile Court
dependency/termination cases
“Becca” cases (truancy contempt,
at-risk youth, CHINS)

70

2. If the county has public defense contracts, fill out the Table of Public Defense Contracts (Table
I), and provide a copy of each current contract in alphabetical order by attorney name. (If possible,
please provide scanned copies of contracts, by CD or email attachment. Hard copies are
acceptable.)
3. If the county courts appoint public defense attorneys from a list, provide the name of each
attorney and the compensation paid per case or per hour in the Table of List-Appointed Public
Defense Attorneys (Table II).

4. In 2006, the county paid indigent defense expenses as follows: (Please use The Budget,
Accounting, and Reporting System (BARS) categories listed below7. If the county does not
currently use BARS, please indicate the source of the information provided.)
4a. $_______

512.82 – Adult Felony

4b. $_______

512.83 – Adult Misdemeanor

4c. $_______

512.84 – Juvenile Offender

4d. $_______

512.85 – Juvenile Dependency
and Termination of Parental
Rights

4e. $_______

512.86 – Truancy, At-RiskYouth, CHINS

4f. $_______

512.87 – Civil Commitments –
Mental Health/Alcohol

4g. $_______

512.88 – Civil Commitments –
Sexual Predator
512.89 – Extraordinary
Criminal Case Expenses

4h. $_______

4i. $_______

512.81 –General Indigent
defense

All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent
adult persons charged with a felony offense in the Superior Court and
juvenile offenders charged with a felony under a statutory decline or
following a decline hearing in juvenile court. Additionally, costs arising
from the following actions should be reported in this category: fugitive
complaints; special inquiry proceedings; material witness proceedings;
coroner inquest proceedings; hearings or proceedings on remand from
appellate courts; personal restraint petitions; and habeas petition hearings
in Superior Court where counsel is appointed.
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent
adult persons charged with a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor offense
in a district or municipal court including the cost of RALJ appeals to
superior court.
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent
juvenile persons charged with a felony, gross misdemeanor or
misdemeanor offense in juvenile court including motions to revise rulings
by Court Commissioners in Juvenile cases heard in Superior Court.
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent
juvenile persons charged with a felony, gross misdemeanor or
misdemeanor offense in juvenile court adults eligible for the appointment
of counsel at public expense whose child(ren) are the subject of a
dependency or termination of parental rights action in juvenile court.
Costs associated with the appointment of an attorney to represent a child
should be included in this category. Costs associated with the
appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of a minor
child should not be reported.
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for minor
children named in a “BECCA case,” including at-risk-youth; child-inneed-of-services petitions; and truancy hearings.
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent
adults and minor children subject to mental health and alcohol
commitment proceedings. This category also includes other
miscellaneous commitments, e.g. infectious disease commitment
petitions.
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent
adults subject to a sexual predator petition.
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent
adults charged with a crime for which a jurisdiction may be eligible for
reimbursement of expenses under the extraordinary criminal justice
expense act (RCW 43.330.190).
For jurisdictions that only report under this sub-category, all costs as
defined in 512.80. 8

7

The State Auditor's Local Government Finance Reporting System (LGFRS) website is located at
http://www.sao.wa.gov/applications/lgfrs/
8
BARS Code 512.80 defines Indigent Defense as follows:
All costs associated with providing legal counsel and services for indigent persons in criminal, civil, and juvenile
matters for which the provision of counsel at public expense is provided for by law. Costs to be included are
71

This information was ( ) was not ( ) derived from the State Auditor Budgeting Accounting &
Reporting System (BARS) categories. If BARS category codes are not currently used for public
defense budget reporting, when will the BARS reporting system be
implemented?________________________________
5. Prior to or upon receipt of Chapter 10.101 RCW public defense funds, the county will require
that all indigent defense attorneys attend OPD-approved training at least once per calendar year.
Yes ( ) No ( )
6. Prior to or upon receipt of Chapter 10.101 RCW public defense funds, the county will require
that all private attorneys who contract to provide public defense services begin to report all of their
public defense contracts and “hours billed for nonpublic defense legal services . . . including
number and types of private cases.” (RCW 10.101.050) Yes ( ) No ( )
7. Has the county adopted a public defense ordinance? Yes ( ) No ( ) If so, please attach.
If not, is the county aware that under RCW 10.101.060(1)(a)(i), an ordinance addressing public
defense standards must be adopted during calendar year 2007 to maintain eligibility for funding?
Yes ( ) No ( )
8. Copies of all current public defense contracts are attached to this application. Yes ( ) No ( )

9. In 2007 the county used the funds for the following purpose(s):
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. The county plans to use the 2008 funds for the following purpose; or, alternatively, will employ
the following process to determine how to use the funds:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Certification
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing
information is true and correct.
Signature
Printed Name

Date
Title

Place

attorney salaries and benefits of contract costs for conflict counsel fees, expert witnesses, investigators,
psychological and other examinations, evidence testing, etc. Interpreter costs should only be included for non-court
hearing related interpreter services or interpreter services not otherwise provided under the auspices of the trial
court.
72

Washington State Office of Public Defense
Table I: Public Defense Contracts
Name of attorney/firm

Number of
Superior
Court cases
per contract

73

Number of
District
Court cases
per contract

Number of
Juvenile
Court
offender
cases per
contract

Number of
dependency/
termination
cases per
contract

Conflict
cases only?
Yes/No
(If yes, list
payment)

Washington State Office of Public Defense
Table II: List-Appointed Public Defense Attorneys
Name of Attorney/Firm

Method and Rate of Payment
(per case/per hour, etc.)

74

Number of Cases Assigned
(specify case type, e.g.
Felony, misdemeanor,
juvenile, etc.)

Washington State Office of Public Defense
RCW 10.101 County Funding Distribution (December 2007)

2006

2006

Total

Filings

Distribution

17,300
21,100
160,600
70,100
67,800

207
253
1599
773
599

$27,147
$31,177
$160,954
$79,262
$69,082

403,500
4,100
96,800
35,700
7,500
64,200

2477
35
1687
279
39
575

$309,299
$12,503
$138,865

12
862
752
301
219
10,883

$10,572
$88,378
$78,275
$57,240
$32,353
$1,354,830

County

Population

Adams
Asotin
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
Clark
Columbia
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King

2,400
80,600
70,400
77,200
28,200
1,835,300

$14,140
$66,302

Kitsap
Kittitas
Klickitat
Lewis
Lincoln
Mason

243,400
37,400
19,800
72,900
10,200
53,100

1852
367
221
844
54
565

$209,070
$44,049
$28,937
$84,196
$16,067
$61,118

Okanogan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
Pierce
San Juan
Skagit

39,800
21,500
12,300
773,500
15,700
113,100

400
287
92
6139
61
973

$46,803
$33,145
$18,960
$658,382
$18,744
$107,884

Skamania
Snohomish
Spokane
Stevens
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla

10,600
671,800
443,800
42,100
231,100
3,900
57,900

130
3411
5071
282
2432
38
483

$20,260
$471,259
$463,581
$41,517
$234,631
$12,578
$58,787

1861
265
3089
50,469

$184,767
$40,910
$269,720
$5,655,744

Whatcom
Whitman
Yakima
Total

184,300
42,800
231,800
6,375,600

Note: City grant funds are not reflected in this Estimated County Funding Distribution table. (RCW 10.101.080)

75

 

 

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side
Advertise Here 3rd Ad
Prisoner Education Guide side