Council on Public Defense outlines new indigent-defense standards and warns of staffing, funding shortfalls

Maya Vanyo, chair of the Council on Public Defense, told the Board of Governors on March 24 that the council has drafted updated Bar standards for indigent defense and forwarded them for review, and that “Phase 1 of the BARS Standards of Indigent Defense goes into effect 07/01/2025.”

The update matters because the council says the revised standards adopt recommendations from the National Public Defense Workload Study and set minimum workload and qualification expectations that local public defense systems and individual attorneys will be expected to meet. Vanyo said the CPD’s standards committee will report any further recommendations to the full council at its April 18 meeting and that approved recommendations would then be forwarded to the Board of Governors and the Washington Supreme Court for action.

The Council on Public Defense (CPD) — a volunteer body that includes public defenders, administrators, judges, prosecutors and academics — drafted the standards after being asked by the Washington Supreme Court in October 2023 to study the National Public Defense Workload Study. According to Vanyo, the CPD approved the standards in March 2024, and the Board of Governors approved new appellate and family-defense standards in September 2024. The CPD described the bar standards as more comprehensive than existing court-rule standards; Vanyo said the Supreme Court is reviewing the bar standards but had not set a date to decide what it will adopt as court rule.

Funding and staffing dominated questions from governors and board members. Liz Mustin of the State Office of Public Defense told the board the office has requested additional budget support for counties to comply with Phase 1 and noted that a county-backed bill that would have shifted roughly half of public-defense funding to the state “died” in the House. “The prospect for new funding is low, and that's a reality of the state fiscal situation,” Mustin said, describing the Legislature’s uncertain response and the office’s request for supplemental resources to help counties hire and retain attorneys.

Board members and CPD participants repeatedly raised concerns about areas with few or no available attorneys. Mustin described a new fellowship program to place interns in rural and underserved counties; she said the Office of Public Defense expects to place about a dozen "rural nines" interns across the state this summer as part of initial recruitment and retention efforts. Vanyo added that some counties are already seeing interest from out-of-state applicants who prefer jurisdictions with manageable workloads.

Discussion participants noted the standards’ potential legal and practical consequences. Vanyo and other speakers cited RCW "ten-one hundred and one-thirty" as a statutory reference that guides how bar standards should inform local standards. The CPD also cited the Washington Supreme Court’s 2010 decision State v ANJ as precedent for using bar standards to guide determinations of effective assistance of counsel.

Speakers warned that, unless funding and staffing are addressed, the new workload expectations could produce triage, delayed representation or other case-management consequences in some jurisdictions. Professor Bob Borukowitz, a member of the CPD standards committee, said diversion programs in some counties have already reduced defender caseloads and urged further local diversion strategies; other governors urged outreach to local prosecutors and elected officials to coordinate diversion and charging decisions.

The session included discussion but no formal action by the Board of Governors. Vanyo said CPD volunteers collected public input via listening sessions and surveys while drafting the standards, and the CPD standards committee has reconvened to consider next steps given the Supreme Court’s delayed decision. The Office of Public Defense has publicly announced budget requests and an internship/fellowship recruitment effort; the CPD said any committee recommendations will return to the council and then to the Board of Governors or Supreme Court as appropriate.

The meeting also included several legal references and resources cited by participants: the National Public Defense Workload Study, the CPD’s draft Bar standards, the court decision State v ANJ, and a cited ABA ethics opinion referenced in the discussion as “O 6‑441.” Those materials were discussed as guidance for practitioners determining whether representation meets ethical and constitutional obligations.

No formal votes or rule adoptions occurred during the briefing. CPD and OPD staff indicated they will continue outreach to counties and the Board of Governors while awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision and legislative budget actions; the CPD planned to report back at its April 18 meeting and to forward any approved recommendations to the Board of Governors and the court.