Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Public defenders tell House panel $7.85M needed for pay parity and to replace ARPA conflict funding
Loading...
Summary
The Public Defender Council asked the House appropriations subcommittee to fund pay parity with prosecutors (about $7.85 million) and to replace ARPA-funded conflict counsel, warning that turnover and rising multi-defendant cases are straining the system.
Omotayo Ali, representing the Georgia Public Defender Council, asked the House appropriations subcommittee to approve funding that would bring public defender pay in line with prosecutors and to cover an increase in conflict counsel costs now paid with expiring ARPA funds. "We only have two asks, but those two are so important to GPDC and the operations of criminal justice for the whole entire state of Georgia," Ali said.
Clay Tapley, chief public defender in Dublin, told the committee the parity estimate — roughly $7.8 million — reflects years of underinvestment and is necessary to retain attorneys in the field. "Parity is a good thing," Tapley said, adding that nearly 200 of about 230 judges opted into a recent judicial pay model and public defenders need comparable stability to reduce turnover that slows case processing.
The Council described a hybrid conflict model that relies on 125 private contractor attorneys paid on a per-contract basis and a mix of state- and county-funded assistant defenders. Deandre Berry, GPDC's CFO, explained contractors accept conflict cases under month-to-month contracts; the committee and presenters debated the per-case rates and the arithmetic used in the tracking sheets.
Representatives pressed GPDC for documentation. One member cited an audit noting salary discrepancies and asked whether GPDC had adopted the formal salary schedule required by Georgia law (OCGA 17-12-30 was referenced during questioning). GPDC said it has been using the prosecutors' schedule as a template, is working to codify a common pay plan consistent with prosecutors' schedules, and agreed to provide the committee the formal schedule and circuit-by-circuit tracking sheets that produced the $7,847,602 figure.
Members also asked for more data about conflict cases that GPDC seeks to replace with state funds formerly covered by ARPA: how many cases, whether they are appeals or multi-defendant indictments, their age, and how much of the ARPA funds covered temporary staffing. GPDC said it would provide circuit-level tracking sheets and other requested data and has begun pilot work on a uniform conflict policy to reduce variance across circuits.
The committee signaled support for parity in principle but repeatedly requested the pay schedule and supporting numbers before committing funds. The hearing closed with the committee asking GPDC and staff to provide the requested schedule and conflict-case data into the record for further review.
