PDSC board directs management to craft private-attorney-panel rules ahead of Bill 97-38

The Guam Public Defender Service Corporation board of trustees on June 24 voted unanimously to direct management to prepare detailed recommendations governing a private-attorney-panel division so the newly constituted board can act promptly if Bill 97-38 L.S. becomes law.

Chief Justice Robert Torres, chair of the PDSC board, proposed revising the draft resolution to remove cross-references to the judiciary’s miscellaneous rules and instead have the Public Defender Service Corporation compile its own recommended rules and forms. "I propose that we make a change to the resolution because it references the Guam judiciary's miscellaneous rules and forms," Torres said during discussion.

The amended resolution requires management to deliver recommendations by Aug. 1, 2025, for adoption by the incoming board following enactment of Bill 97-38 L.S. The resolution lists minimum required elements for the private-attorney-panel recommendations: qualifications for appointment; procedures for case assignment; a fee structure including compensation caps and exception processes; record-keeping and reporting requirements; appointment procedures for investigators, experts and paralegals; the panel application form; and financial declarations.

Trustee Donna Munya Kanata moved the resolution for discussion; the motion was seconded and then approved with all present members voting in favor. Chief Justice Torres and staff said the management packet should track the existing judiciary forms where useful but present them as PDSC recommendations so the incoming board can act without having to recompile the material.

The board’s action is framed by a pending legislative change: Bill 97-38 L.S., introduced in the 2025 legislative session, would transfer governance for the public defender system from the judiciary to the PDSC structure envisioned in the bill. Board members said they expected the legislation to advance in the July session and that a newly appointed board would need a ready packet of administrative rules.

Votes at the meeting were taken orally; the chair called for those in favor and recorded no objections. The board discussed management assistance from judiciary staff to ensure the recommendations covered the same substantive topics currently in the judiciary’s forms.

The board did not set new compensation caps or fee levels in the resolution; those specifics are to be included in the management-prepared recommendations.

The resolution was the last substantive new-business item on an agenda that also included routine financial and program reports.