Thurston County public defenders outline costly plan to meet new state caseload standards

Thurston County public defense officials told the Board of County Commissioners on Aug. 13 that a Washington Supreme Court order implementing revised public defense caseload standards takes effect Jan. 2026 and will require counties to reduce caseloads or add staff to comply.

The court's order implements recommendations from the Washington State Bar Association and requires counties to begin a drawdown in caseloads starting in January 2026, with full compliance to follow within a maximum 10-year period. "This is a binding court order from our Supreme Court to indigent defenders," Patrick O'Connor, director of Thurston County Public Defense, said during the work session.

The court set maximum annual caseloads under the revised guidance that counties must reach within the drawdown period: for example, maximums of 47 felonies and 120 misdemeanors per attorney (counts vary by case type and youth/ITA categories). O'Connor said the order also requires counties to adopt case-weighting or else count actual case numbers under the default rule.

Why it matters: County public defenders currently receive far less attorney-time credit under the old standards; O'Connor described the change as substantial and said the new standards reflect the increased hours now needed per case because of discovery demands such as body-worn camera footage.

What the county presented: Using two years of recent appointment data, O'Connor's office projected staffing needs to meet the new standards under the fastest plausible staffing model. He told commissioners the office would need 35 additional defense attorneys under the projection that assumes the maximum 10-year phase-in but implemented faster, broken into 25 felony attorneys, six misdemeanor attorneys, two juvenile attorneys and two ITA (involuntary treatment act) attorneys. He said support staff, investigators and supervisory positions would also be required as the attorney headcount grows.

"I don't want to hire all these attorneys. I don't wanna have to add 35 more attorneys," O'Connor said, adding that the county could pursue fewer hires if it reduced incoming appointments. He recommended a five-year implementation plan to strike a balance between budget realities and recruiting/retention needs.

Costs and timing: O'Connor and county budget staff presented two implementation cost models (five-year and 10-year). The office emphasized additional recurring costs beyond salaries, including investigator positions, administrative support, management, indirect county services (IT, HR, facilities) and conflict-contract counsel for conflicts of interest. The county's budget team told commissioners the five-year plan would bring faster relief to staff and improve competitiveness in recruiting; the 10-year path spreads costs longer but still increases total expense in some projections.

Recruitment and workforce issues: Speakers emphasized this is a statewide workforce challenge. O'Connor and county managers noted other counties (King, Snohomish) are recruiting aggressively, potentially creating retention risk. The presentation described recruiting work already underway and noted the standards themselves can be a retention tool for current defenders.

Next steps and board direction: O'Connor asked the commission to consider the five-year implementation model as a planning baseline and to treat the next biennium as the first step toward compliance. County management and budget staff offered to follow up with more detailed cost breakdowns and to work with the board on biennial budget planning for implementation steps.

Ending note: Commissioners asked follow-up questions about the projection methodology, recruiting challenges and timing; staff said they will return with more detailed budget requests and answers to specific questions.