Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defender Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves conflict policy for public-defender and assigned-counsel cases
Summary
Washington County commissioners approved a new conflict-of-interest policy intended to clarify when the public-defender office versus assigned counsel will handle conflicted cases, citing caseload pressures and recent staffing changes.
Washington County commissioners voted to approve a conflict-of-interest policy intended to clarify how the county’s public-defender office and the assigned-counsel office divide cases when a conflict arises. A county legal-services presenter told the board that the Legal Aid Society has begun performing conflict-defender work and that a written policy will make workload and cost expectations clearer.
"I am seeking approval of the conflict policy between our office and the assigned counsel office," the presenter said, describing monthly caseloads that exceed the ILS weighted standard and noting recent hires that have reduced attorney vacancies. Board members asked whether the policy would save money by retaining more work in the public-defender office; staff said caseload figures (ILS standard 86; recent months in the range of 113 to about 150) show demand pressures but that handling more files in-house should reduce hourly assigned-counsel costs.
The Chair called for a vote after discussion and the board approved the policy by voice vote. The policy, as presented, is intended to formalize practices staff said they have already been following and to provide a basis for future negotiations with Indigent Legal Services (ILS) about caseload limits.
