Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Access To Counsel topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee hears complaints about Madden list and representation gaps in family‑offense and landlord‑tenant dockets

2891546 · April 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Legislators and judges raised concerns that attorneys assigned from the Madden list lack subject‑matter expertise for family‑offense (FO) dockets and landlord‑tenant proceedings, and witnesses urged legislative or budgetary fixes, including expanding public defender resources.

Judges and committee members described recurring problems with court‑appointed counsel on family‑offense (FO) dockets and with high rates of unrepresented parties in landlord‑tenant cases during the Assembly Budget Committee hearing.

Assignment judges and Michael Blee said the Madden list — the pool used to assign private attorneys to certain family‑offense and restraining‑order matters — sometimes produces attorneys without criminal or domestic‑violence experience, triggering motions and hearings about adequacy of representation. One assignment judge said he receives one or two contested hearings a month related to Madden appointments because appointed counsel lack relevant courtroom experience.

Committee members and judges urged stronger public defender coverage for FO dockets. Blee said the public defender’s office already handles many indictable offenses and that proposed legislative changes to allow expanded public defender assignment for some FO matters would be “money well spent,” though he cautioned funding is required.

The committee also heard that more than 96 percent of defendants in landlord‑tenant cases are unrepresented in some vicinages, heightening concerns about access to justice. Members discussed proposals to expand a right to counsel in housing cases but acknowledged funding constraints.

Ending: Judiciary and committee members agreed to continue collaboration on legislative fixes and funding options to reduce reliance on ad‑hoc private appointments and to explore capacity increases for public defenders and legal services.