Spokane County commissioners set public hearing on codifying public defender caseload standards; vote 3-2

The Spokane County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 to set a public hearing on a proposal to codify recent state Supreme Court caseload standards for the county public defender's office.

The hearing will be scheduled as part of the commissioners' public process; the vote advances the measure to a public hearing rather than immediately changing the county code.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the item is an initial step to ensure the county code aligns with Supreme Court requirements while county leaders and the public consider how caseloads should be defined in practice. The item prompted sustained discussion about whether fixed counts or a case-weighting approach better balances compliance with ethical obligations under Bar Association guidance.

County discussion and dissent

Commissioner Waldorf said she preferred further work before changing the code. “I would prefer that we work on several aspects of caseload standards before we make changes to our code. That's why I'm gonna vote no on this matter today,” she said.

Commissioner Jordan echoed Waldorf's concern about how numerical standards relate to attorneys' professional responsibilities and urged further study of a case-weighting model. “Another option that the board could consider is what many other counties have done to look at case weighting... I suggested that we have some intensive meetings to develop such a proposal,” Jordan said.

Commissioner French argued the board needed to move forward to provide a starting framework and called the situation a statewide “conundrum” created by multiple overlapping standards. “The state supreme court... has created a conundrum for the counties... There is no clear path to comply with both the bar and the Supreme Court and AOC. We'll work our way through it. But this is a starting point, and so that's why I'll support the motion,” French said.

Practical next steps

Board members said additional meetings will be scheduled before the public hearing so commissioners, county staff and the public can evaluate alternatives such as case weighting (where a murder case would count differently than a theft) and to incorporate new state funding expected to add roughly one million dollars for additional public defenders in the coming months.

Votes at a glance

- Item 3a (set public hearing to consider adopting Supreme Court caseload standards into county code): Motion to set hearing carried 3–2. The transcript records the motion, a second and a roll-call-style verbal tally, but does not map each recorded “aye” or “nay” to individual commissioners in the audio record.

What remains unresolved

Commissioners said the county is currently meeting the minimum requirements of the Supreme Court order but must clarify how codified standards would interact with ethics guidance from the Bar Association and the Administrative Office of the Courts. The board directed staff to hold further intensive meetings to develop alternatives before the public hearing.

Ending

The board set the item for a public hearing (procedural step) and will continue deliberations in follow-up sessions; no change to county code takes effect until after the public hearing and any subsequent action by the board.