Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lynnwood public defense contractor warns new Supreme Court caseload standards will require more attorneys and earlier contracting
Summary
The city—ontract public defender, Feldman Lee, told the Lynnwood City Council that a Washington Supreme Court push for case-weighting standards and a 10% annual workload reduction will require the city to increase staffing and consider an early contract start in September to avoid gaps in representation.
Attorney Patrick Feldman, supervisor for Feldman Lee, told the Lynnwood City Council on Aug. 11 that changes the Washington State Supreme Court is pushing for will reduce the number of cases a public defender can carry and increase the measured workload for many case types.
"Everyone who is arrested for a crime has a right to an attorney," Feldman said, summarizing the constitutional baseline that is driving urgency around staffing. He told the council that the Supreme Court has signaled a 10% annual reduction in individual caseload allowances and is pressing jurisdictions to adopt case-weighting standards that count more time for many case types.
The change matters because Lynnwood and its contract provider currently measure cases as "1" regardless of complexity; under the proposed weighting some matters would count as more than 1 case. Feldman said his analysis shows a roughly 15% increase in case-weighted workload once those standards are applied, which compounds the impact of the 10% reduction in allowable caseloads per attorney.
Why it matters: Feldman said the combined effects mean Lynnwood will need additional attorney capacity for 2025 and 2026 to comply with the new standards and avoid forced use of outside conflict counsel or gaps in representation. He told council members the contract runs through Dec. 31 and recommended starting a new contract in September to hire staff and avoid shortages when the rules change.
Key details from Feldman and staff: - Current individual caseload ceiling discussed by the contractor is 400 "cases" per attorney under existing rules; once an attorney reaches that number they cannot be assigned new cases, Feldman said. - The Supreme Court irective envisions gradual reductions that would reach a target of 120 weighted-case equivalents over a longer timeframe; the court lso wants jurisdictions to adopt case-weighting to avoid an abrupt drop. - Feldman said his office is currently projecting a need for four full-time attorneys for Lynnwood in 2026 and that the firm is already on pace to exceed limits for 2025 without additional hires.
Council questions and context: Council members pressed on operational implications if an attorney hits the cap midyear. Feldman and Assistant City Administrator Moore said that once an attorney hits the limit they can keep working existing matters but cannot accept new assignments; judges may then assign those new cases to conflict counsel, a more expensive option for the city, or in extreme circumstances jurisdictions have reported dismissal or delay of cases when representation capacity was exhausted.
Council member Decker asked whether attorneys who hit their limits would effectively be unable to accept new work for months. Feldman replied that "once someone hits 400, they stop new assignments," and those cases would be routed to conflict counsel or otherwise handled at the court's direction.
Moore and staff said the city preemptively added a 10% buffer to the public defense budget during last fall—udget preparations to partially offset the impact. The city will return with a contract authorization in September; staff recommended authorizing a September start to allow hiring and avoid a midseason gap.
The contractor noted hiring challenges: cost of attorneys has risen ~40% since 2018, health-insurance costs were described as rising steeply (staff cited a 27% projected increase for 2026), and public defense is a competitive labor market with few new entrants.
No final vote was taken. Council members directed staff to bring a contract authorization back in September. Feldman said he would issue an invoice for any work started before a formal contract approval if needed so the firm could begin staffing immediately.
Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are identified in the council record and in the speaker list below. No attribution is made beyond the meeting transcript where a speaker was not named.
Ending: The council scheduled follow-up discussion for September, when members expect a detailed contract authorization that could include a September start date, additional budget requests for 2026, and contingent hiring plans to reduce reliance on conflict counsel.
