Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defender Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Bill 46 updates century-old change-of-attorney statute for public defenders, officials say
Summary
House Bill 46 would modernize an 1895 change-of-attorney statute to reflect the public-defender system and reduce operational barriers to reassigning public defenders without abandoning clients. The Office of State Public Defender supported the cleanup; sponsors said courts retain oversight to address competence or conflicts.
Representative James Reavis introduced House Bill 46 as a statutory cleanup updating a Title 37 provision that predates the Office of State Public Defender. "This bill...updates the attorney change-of-attorney statute in Title 37," Reavis told the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying the law has not been updated since 1895 and that the measure clarifies how public defenders are reassigned under existing strategic plans.
Brett Shandelson, director of the Office of State Public Defender, said the bill prevents situations in which a departing public defender could be forced by an old statute to continue representing clients despite leaving the office. "What this bill would do is not require the OPD to prepare and file a document seeking a court to review that document and issue an order to allow us to change a public defender," Shandelson said, underscoring the agency’s intent to ensure clients retain representation under OPD’s assignment authority.
Both the sponsor and the OPD emphasized that the bill is not intended to abandon clients and does not remove judicial oversight if competence or conflict issues arise; courts would retain the ability to hold attorneys and agencies accountable under professional obligations. No opponents or informational witnesses appeared at the hearing; the committee heard the proponent testimony and closed the hearing without further action that day.
Next steps: the bill was presented as a noncontroversial cleanup and the sponsor urged the committee to pass it; the committee will consider it in executive action as appropriate.
