Committee advances bill to ban flat-fee public-defense contracts; counties seek state funding

The Senate advanced AB 690 (Chair Schultz) to Appropriations after a lengthy discussion about public-defense funding and the effect of contract structures on the quality of representation. The bill would set standards for indigent defense and prohibit flat-fee or per-case compensation models for attorneys contracted to provide public defense services in counties that lack public defender offices.

Supporters, including prisoner-justice advocates and public-defender organizations, argued flat fees create perverse incentives that lead to excessive caseloads and poorer outcomes. "Attorneys like mine who rely on flat-fee contracts are discouraged from hiring anybody that can contribute to someone's defense because it is disincentivized by the structure that they work under," testified Rudy Castillo, who described his own experiences with court-appointed counsel in a rural county. Natasha Minsker of Smart Justice California said the measure does not require hourly rates but would eliminate flat-fee structures and that the state has historically underfunded public defense.

County and rural representatives voiced opposition. Ryan Morrumeuni of the California State Association of Counties and other county witnesses said the bill imposes significant new standards and ancillary-service requirements (investigators, mitigation specialists, social workers) without providing state funding. Portraying real practical constraints, they warned the measure could make it harder for rural counties to secure counsel and could carry immediate fiscal effects.

Chair Schultz and other senators said they supported raising defense standards but acknowledged counties' concerns and the need to identify funding or alternative models; the author said she would keep negotiating with stakeholders. The committee voted to send the bill to Appropriations for fiscal review and further stakeholder engagement.