Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Public Defense topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City staff recommends extending Feldman & Lee public‑defender contract while courts implement new caseload standards

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

City staff recommended extending the Feldman & Lee public‑defender agreement through Dec. 31 to allow time for procurement and planning after a Washington State Supreme Court provisional order lowers defender caseload standards effective Jan. 1, 2026.

City staff recommended extending the city’s agreement with the law firm Feldman & Lee for public defense services through the end of the year while jurisdictions assess operational and procurement options following a recent Washington State Supreme Court provisional order.

The staff report said the Supreme Court issued guidance that will reduce the maximum weighted caseload standard for public defenders from the earlier maximum to 120 (weighted cases) and that the order allows jurisdictions to phase in the reduction by lowering the delta between current caseloads and the new standard by 10 percent per year over ten years. The court proposed implementation beginning Jan. 1, 2026.

Because the court guidance was issued this week, staff said the city needs time to evaluate the implications for budgeting and contracting. The staff recommended extending the current Feldman & Lee agreement to Dec. 31 to align procurement and implementation timelines; staff also said it would issue a request for proposals (RFP) for public‑defense services in the fall so a new contract can take effect Jan. 1, 2026, consistent with the court timeline.

City finance figures prepared for council show the public‑defense line item at $432,000; staff said $159,000 of contractual expenditures is projected for the remainder of the current year. Council members asked about regional partnering with other cities that use the same court as a way to gain economies of scale; staff said those discussions are underway and would be pursued.

Ending: Council did not vote on a new contract at the meeting; staff recommended the extension and said it will pursue procurement and intercity coordination options and return with a contract plan timed to the court’s implementation schedule.