Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves conflict policy as Public Defender office reports caseloads above ILS limit
Summary
The Public Safety Committee approved a Conflict of Interest Policy for the Assigned Counsel and Public Defender offices after Public Defender Mike Mercure reported full staffing and caseloads well over the Indigent Legal Services (ILS) weighted limit of 86; Legal Aid began conflict-defender work the same day.
Get email alerts on the Public Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Public Safety Committee on July 28 approved a Conflict of Interest Policy for attorneys in the Assigned Counsel Office and the Public Defender Office after hearing that recent staffing fills and contract changes should reduce conflicts and associated costs. Public Defender Mike Mercure told the committee, "Filled all open positions which should help with conflicts and keep their caseload volume where it should be." The motion to approve the policy was moved by Mr. O’Brien, seconded by Mr. Herrick and adopted.
Mercure described persistent caseload pressure under the ILS framework: "The Public Defender’s caseload limit per ILS ... is a weighted number 86 and the lowest number of cases they have taken in a month so far is 113 in February, 45 points over the limit. Most months, they are doing about 150." He said the office recently shifted misdemeanor vehicle and traffic cases from Assigned Counsel to the Public Defender’s Office because paying Assigned Counsel for those lower-level matters had become excessively costly. The county’s County Attorney and Assigned Counsel have reviewed and approved the policy, Mercure said.
The committee record notes the Legal Aid Society began contracted conflict-defender work the same day Mercure reported, a change intended to help manage caseloads and reduce reliance on outside assigned counsel. Mercure said he expects the policy and new staffing arrangements to make conflict determinations clearer and lower net costs tied to conflict assignments. The committee did not attach a dollar amount to projected savings; funding and caseload limits remain subject to negotiation with Indigent Legal Services (ILS).
