Appellate indigent defense leaders warn of 'constitutional crisis' without $25M boost for court‑appointed counsel

Judicial and advocacy leaders told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 that California’s court‑appointed appellate counsel system faces an urgent recruitment and retention crisis that is causing long delays in appellate cases, including dependency and juvenile matters.

Justice Stacy Bulwell Urie (title listed in panel materials), speaking for the Judicial Council, said appellate defense projects and their volunteer panel attorneys are “at a crossroads” and described a rapid decline in available counsel. “Ten years ago, there were almost 950 panel attorneys. Today only around 600 remain,” Justice Bulwell Urie said, adding that appellate courts process nearly 10,000 cases a year and projects are now seeing thousands of cases waiting for counsel.

Jennifer Peabody, acting executive director of the California Appellate Project in Los Angeles, said demand has risen and supply has fallen simultaneously. She told the subcommittee the number of indigent appeals statewide rose 27% since 2018–19, to about 10,800, but the panel of attorneys accepting appointments fell roughly 30%. “Clients are waiting as long as nine months for an attorney to become available to take their case,” Peabody said, and the delays have consequences for children in foster care, juveniles detained pre‑trial and incarcerated people seeking timely appellate review.

The Judicial Council requested $25 million to shore up the five appellate projects and increase hourly rates for panel attorneys; the governor’s January budget included $6.3 million. Project leaders and panel attorneys told the committee the smaller amount will not be sufficient to reverse departures or meaningfully reduce the backlog.

Why it matters: Delays in appointing counsel on appeal can prolong foster‑care placements, keep juveniles detained and extend incarceration while appellate review is pending. Speakers warned that those outcomes carry both human and fiscal costs and potential litigation risk for the state.

Project directors described local details. Jennifer Peabody said the Second Appellate District had gone from appointing counsel in about 2,800 cases per year to roughly 4,000, and the office still had about 1,000 clients waiting. Project staffing and panel departures were cited across districts: the First District appellate project reported losing five staff attorneys in 2024 and difficulty hiring replacements; Central California Appellate Program said more than 350 cases were awaiting appointment in its region.

Panel and public comments repeatedly emphasized pay parity and recruitment: project leaders asked for a $40 hourly increase for panel attorneys and a 30% increase for project operating contracts. Panel attorneys and project staff said the appellate role is time‑intensive, requires specialized skills and has not kept pace with inflation, student debt and alternative pay options. One panel attorney noted federal panel rates are substantially higher, encouraging experienced counsel to take federal appointments instead.

Department of Finance representatives said the administration included a modest increase in January’s budget but cited overall General Fund limits. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and other observers urged careful evaluation of priorities and stressed that the requested funding would need to be weighed against other state fiscal pressures.

The subcommittee heard multiple public comments from project directors, panel attorneys and advocacy groups asking the Legislature to provide the full $25 million the Judicial Council originally requested. No formal vote occurred at the hearing; committee members asked the administration and Judicial Council to continue the discussion as the budget process proceeds.