San Francisco public defender made the right call to limit defender caseloads

The recent decision by the San Francisco Public Defender, Manohar Raju, to declare his office's reduced availability to accept new case assignments accomplishes two critical objectives: it ensures that the public defenders in the office are able to meet their ethical obligations to provide effective representation to their clients; and it helps to ensure that experienced attorneys are not forced to choose between quitting or sacrificing their health to meet impossible demands.

Lawyers are ethically obligated to control their workload so that they can provide competent representation to each client. There is growing national acknowledgment that public defenders have long been burdened with workloads that far exceed what is ethically and professionally sustainable. The Alaska Supreme Court recently commented on the problem of excessive public defender caseloads and made clear that a conflict of interest arises when a defender lacks the attorney time to provide effective assistance: "As a caseload increases, the attorney's ability to bring to each case the thoroughness and preparation necessary to provide competent representation may diminish."

Across the country, including in places in California, defenders have been expected to triage cases as if they were surgeons on a battlefield, forced to make decisions about how to allocate their time in ways that are unfair to clients and attorneys. Clients should have the full attention and resources of their attorneys, whether they are wealthy people charged with murder or poor people charged with shoplifting or burglary.

Ultimately, it is the poor person facing loss of liberty who suffers when their lawyer cannot do the necessary investigation, legal research and preparation for court to provide effective representation. The result is that innocent people can be convicted, and unnecessarily harsh sentences can be imposed because lawyers do not have time or resources to present effective alternatives to long incarceration. Defender clients are disproportionately people of color, and when the defenders do not have the time and resources they need, racial disparities increase.

Raju, informed by both a new national public defender workload study and California-specific guidelines, has implemented a pragmatic and necessary stop-gap measure. His office will decline to take new misdemeanor cases one day each week and selectively decline certain felony matters. This is a modest response in the face of the dramatic increase in prosecutions in San Francisco. The decision to decline some misdemeanor assignments and some felony matters when lawyers are already carrying workloads that exceed professional norms is consistent with national standards and is necessary to ensure adequate and ethical representation of indigent defendants.

This modest response also helps to prevent attorneys from having to quit or risk their health through overwork in the face of their ethical obligations. The human toll of heavy caseloads can be seen in many of the 200 attorney comments submitted to the Washington Supreme Court when the Washington State Bar Association proposed a new court rule that would set much lower caseload limits for defenders than the current rule provides.

A defender with more than 20 years of experience wrote: "Public defenders are one of society's primary bulwarks against racism and injustice, but the work itself is grinding, relentless, and at times traumatizing."

An attorney who quit after 26 years as a public defender because of the untenable caseload wrote:

"I was absolutely convinced that the unrelenting strain, stress, and long hours would take my life if I stayed doing that work. ...I knew if I remained a public defender I would eventually suffer the heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm that, along with suicide, I have watched claim the life of so many of my colleagues. Seeing my own death on the horizon if I didn't change course was shocking and is why I left public defense."

Another lawyer described having had a stroke and a miscarriage while working as a defender.

California courts, since at least 1970, have recognized that "[w]hen a public defender reels under a staggering workload," the defender should alert the court, which then can order other counsel to take the case. (Ligda v. Superior Court). The California Legislature also has established procedures for the appointment of other counsel when the public defender is unavailable.

The Defender's decision, in addition to being necessary to protect clients and attorneys, presents an opportunity for all the criminal legal system stakeholders to review filing practices. Is the recent dramatic increase in prosecutions in San Francisco necessary or justified to promote public safety? Are there cases that could better be resolved through alternatives to traditional prosecution? Are there cases being prosecuted as felonies that could safely and more appropriately be treated as misdemeanors? Would investment in housing and mental health services yield savings in reduced crime and fewer prosecutions?

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright recognized that the Sixth Amendment required states to provide counsel in criminal cases for those unable to afford a private lawyer. States and local governments have struggled to fulfill Gideon's promise, leaving defenders nationally to take on excessive caseloads. The San Francisco Public Defender deserves credit for carefully drawing a line, necessary to avoid harm to clients and his staff.