Committee hears first briefing on proposed public defense standards change
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At a March 4 Law and Justice Committee hearing, council staff and the Department of Public Defense discussed a proposed ordinance that would adopt Washington Supreme Court standards where required and WSBA standards where court rules are silent; DPD said it opposes the change and warned of staffing and fiscal impacts as caseload limits are phased in.
The Law and Justice Committee on March 4 held its first hearing on a proposed ordinance to update King County’s public defense standards in response to recent Washington State Supreme Court and Washington State Bar Association guidance.
Council staff summarized the bill and its rationale. "The proposed ordinance would make 2 changes to county code," said Leah Kreckelzappi, council staff, who told the committee the measure would adopt Supreme Court standards where the court rule exists and use the WSBA standards for required elements not yet reflected in court rules. Kreckelzappi said the proposal would also update the county’s reference to the American Bar Association’s 10 Principles to the August 2023 version.
Sponsor Council member Baron said the measure is intended to clarify ambiguous code language and avoid forcing staffing ratios into ordinance text. "My primary consideration is that the code is not really the appropriate place for us to be including that level of detail regarding staffing," Baron said, noting those decisions should be handled through collective bargaining and appropriations.
Department of Public Defense Director Matt Sanders told the committee DPD opposes the ordinance as drafted but outlined the department’s recent work to implement new standards. "I don't think it's gonna be a huge surprise to learn that DPD opposes the proposed ordinance," Sanders said, adding that DPD has been preparing for phase 2 of the WSBA standards since mid-2024. He projected that "we would need 5 revenue backed attorneys" to meet criminal demands under phase 2 beginning in July 2026 and warned that phase 3 (July 2027) would be significantly more costly.
Staff and several council members flagged fiscal impacts as a key open issue. Kreckelzappi and others said fiscal analysis is ongoing and would be presented at the next hearing. The staff report noted that while some proposed standards align with current DPD practice, other standards—especially caseload limits and ratios for mitigation specialists and nonlawyer professionals—could require more attorneys and support staff and increase administrative and capital costs.
Committee members asked about stakeholder engagement and process options. Kendall Moore, council legal counsel, pointed to the statute cited in staff materials that tasks local legislative authorities with adopting local standards and said that ordinance adoption is the legal mechanism for that function. Council members also discussed whether standards could be adopted administratively rather than by code, and how to balance compliance timelines with budget realities.
The committee did not take action on the ordinance; Chair Rhonda Lewis said staff would return with more analysis and the item would have at least one additional hearing for questions and fiscal detail.