Davis County legal defenders warn of staffing crisis, seek pay restructure to retain experienced attorneys

Todd Edsinger, speaking for the Davis County Legal Defenders, told the county budget panel that an influx of cases, more complex evidence and lower pay compared with prosecutors have put the defender office near a breaking point and require a pay-structure change to avert attorney losses.

Edsinger said the office’s workload has grown with county population and that the Indigent Defense Commission (IDC) data show steady increases in appointments since mid-2022. "We represent about 80% of the people charged in district court by the county attorney's office," he said, and noted that recent national guidance from the RAND Corporation recommends a workload cap of about 59 low‑level felonies or 50 low‑level misdemeanors for a full‑time defender. Davis County defenders, Edsinger said, exceed those measures on both simple and weighted-case metrics.

Why it matters: escalating case complexity—more video, body‑cam footage, social‑media discovery and DNA analysis—lengthens preparation and raises costs. Edsinger cited a Utah County murder case reversed by appellate review after defense counsel did not pursue DNA testing; he said such oversights are expensive and traumatic to defendants and victims and argued they illustrate why adequate resources matter.

Edsinger provided per‑capita spending figures and pay comparisons to make the case for additional county support. "Davis County spending is $8.90 per capita," he said, below a statewide average of $13.18. He contrasted that with prosecution spending of $16.08 per capita and average defender compensation around $70 an hour versus roughly $102 an hour in the county attorney’s office. He called the gap a recruiting and retention problem: some defenders have left for government prosecutor roles or private practice that offer higher pay and benefits.

The proposal: Edsinger said his plan would narrow a previously described 41% pay gap to roughly 17%, raising the average defender hourly rate to about $94.56 while still keeping Davis County below the statewide per‑capita average. He acknowledged many defenders are independent contractors who pay their own overhead and that some contracts are capped (he cited a $150,000 cap for some roles), and he said the adjustment is intended to make the work sustainable without changing the office’s efficient structure.

Funding context and constraints: Edsinger said the IDC contributes about $237,000 annually but that the governor’s recent budget cuts reduced IDC funding in the last session. He noted Weber County received IDC transition funds of about $500,000 to shift to a full‑time model; that change has made regional recruiting more competitive. Edsinger told the panel he has written legislators and urged local advocacy but said the county must decide its own funding priorities because court‑ordered representation is mandatory under the U.S. and state constitutions.

Operational impacts and costs: Davis County handles many appeals in‑house—Edsinger estimated appellate spending at about $240,000 this year—whereas the attorney general’s office has a larger appellate staff. He also described one terminations and contingency coverage: an attorney dismissed for inappropriate conduct was temporarily replaced by outside counsel to avoid service gaps.

Edsinger framed the request as a practical choice to preserve experienced defense counsel and maintain quality representation: "If I don't get additional funding for attorneys, we are gonna start losing them," he said. He closed by reminding the committee of the office’s client‑facing work: defenders have paid commissary funds, hotel rooms and travel for clients, and sometimes helped with groceries so homes pass inspections, which he said underscores the human stakes of the funding decision.

The committee moved to questions after Edsinger’s presentation; an attendee identified as Kyle asked whether defenders’ personalities differ from prosecutors, and Edsinger stressed professional collaboration with the county attorney’s office. No formal vote or funding decision was recorded at the meeting; Edsinger said he would provide supporting reports and data to committee members for follow‑up.