Davis County legal defenders ask budget committee for funding boost for CLE, appeals and staff contracts

Davis County legal defenders told the county Budget Committee they need additional funding to cover continuing legal education (CLE) costs, rising appeals workloads and contract-related pay increases, and urged the county to include those amounts in the next budget.

The request, made during a budget committee meeting, came from a legal defender who said he has paid CLE expenses out of pocket for eight to nine years and can no longer absorb those costs. He asked the county to begin covering CLE expenses for the public defense program so those trainings no longer come from individual attorneys’ pockets.

Why this matters: Defenders said the county’s indigent-defense system faces sustained pressure from an above-guideline caseload and a growing volume of appellate work. Those pressures, they said, are driving higher costs for investigator time, transcripts and outside appellate counsel and could affect the county’s ability to meet constitutional defense obligations if not budgeted for.

Discussion and figures presented County staff clarified that an initial broad figure mentioned by defenders was not a single $300,000 increase. Instead, staff said the request breaks down into smaller increases in specific lines: about $28,000 more for travel and education, roughly $75,000 more earmarked for appeals work, and a modest roughly 10% increase projected for investigator and transcript costs. The defender who spoke described the investigator/transcript increase as “a modest increase” compared with current budgeted levels.

The defender noted Davis County receives a waiver from the Indigent Defense Commission (IDC) that relieves the county from participating in the IDC CLE program because the county’s own CLE program meets IDC standards. He said that waiver has permitted the county to run its own CLE for years, but that the county should now assume the program’s direct costs.

On appeals, defenders and staff said counties continue to experience heavier appellate caseloads in part because trials delayed by pandemic-era backlogs have generated spinoff work. One defender said local judges are scheduling trials months out and that many cases inherited from private counsel have extensive pretrial motions that add to appellate workload.

Contract and compensation concerns Committee members and staff discussed recurring contract provisions that automatically increase contractor pay. Staff explained current contracts include a 4% contractor increase plus whatever COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) employees receive; if employees receive a 3% COLA, the combined effect would yield roughly a 7% automatic increase for contractors. Committee members said that built-in growth will create ongoing budget pressure unless the contract language is revisited.

Defenders and committee members said the county has sought to close a compensation gap between private prosecutors and public defenders over several years. The defender who spoke said hourly compensation for defenders has risen from about $70 in a prior year to roughly $92 on average most recently, while prosecutors’ hourly compensation has been reported around $102 per hour in earlier figures cited during the meeting. Speakers said the goal is to bring overall compensation and benefits for defenders more in line with prosecutors over a multi-year period.

One-time funds and timing Staff told the committee the county has over-obligated certain one-time projects and that money earmarked for those projects remains obligated through 2026; staff characterized those sums as one-time funding the county could apply to cover transitional costs but not as a sustainable, ongoing revenue source. Committee members noted any one-time fund use would need to be replaced with recurring funding before the earmarked funds expire to avoid a future gap.

No formal vote The meeting record contains discussion and clarifying questions but no formal committee vote or final budget adoption for the public defender requests. Committee members suggested revisiting contractor provisions when current contracts come up for renewal.

What comes next Committee members and staff said they will continue discussions during the budget cycle and when negotiating contractor renewals, including a planned review of the contract language in two years when the current terms expire. The defenders asked the county to include the specific line-item increases discussed here — CLE/travel, appeals, and investigator/transcript costs — as the committee refines the proposed budget.