Hampton public defender asks council to consider supplement to retain attorneys, cites turnover and travel burdens

Hampton — Matthew Johnson, director of the Hampton Public Defender’s Office, asked the City Council during a work session to consider a local supplement to the office’s state funding to improve recruitment and retention of attorneys and support staff.

Johnson told the council that about 75% of criminal defendants in Hampton are represented by the public defender’s office and said the office is experiencing turnover and recruitment challenges. “What I'm asking you to consider is a 3,000 $300,000 supplement to our office,” Johnson said in his presentation packet and remarks, adding that the supplement would be used to “recruit and retain good attorneys.”

Johnson described the office’s workload and staffing: the office is authorized for 16 attorney positions and nine support staff positions but is short several barred attorneys at the moment; he said the office was “currently down 4” attorneys in practices where some recent hires have not yet passed the Virginia bar or are not yet able to practice. He noted many positions are filled conditionally pending bar passage, and that hiring cycles tied to law‑school graduation create gaps.

Johnson said starting public‑defender salaries are set by the state compensation board at about $75,000; local supplements in neighboring jurisdictions — he said Virginia Beach, Suffolk, Newport News and others offer supplements or higher pay — create competitive hiring pressures. He argued that supplements in other localities have improved retention and recruitment, and that Hampton’s lack of supplements makes it hard to keep attorneys who otherwise could go to offices that supplement pay.

Johnson also described workload drivers beyond caseload numbers: a portion of Hampton clients are held in facilities outside the city (Riverside, Petersburg, Suffolk), and travel to meet those clients consumes substantial staff time; he said travel to out‑of‑city detention centers can require a half‑day or full‑day commitment per client visit.

Council members asked about staffing levels, diversity and oversight of supplemental funds. Johnson said the office’s staff are state positions (not city employees) and that memorandums of understanding used in other jurisdictions treat supplemented public defender offices as independent contractors, with language that permits the locality to revoke funding if terms are not met. He also acknowledged a pending employment‑related lawsuit alleging discriminatory termination; he said the matter was handled appropriately and that he could not provide additional comment on pending litigation.

City staff and several council members raised procedural and policy questions: some members asked for comparative salary data from peer localities and expressed concern about precedent — noting that other state employees who serve city residents might also seek supplements — and about the city’s oversight role if it were to provide funds.

No formal council action was taken during the work session; council members asked Johnson and staff to provide comparative compensation and turnover data for Hampton and peer jurisdictions and to return with additional information prior to any funding decision.

Ending: Johnson closed by asking the council to consider the supplement as a tool to stabilize staffing and improve legal representation; council members said they would review additional data and discuss the request during the budget process.