New state standards obligate the City of Olympia to spend more money in coming years to provide criminal defense attorneys to those who cannot afford to defend themselves in the city's municipal court.
According to Diane Whaley, the city's public defense coordinator, Olympia will need an additional $600,000 to comply with Washington State's revised public defense standards. Whaley presented to the Olympia Finance Committee on Monday, August 26.
Olympia's public defense system is facing a transformation. The Washington State Bar Association's (WSBA) revised standards for indigent defense services significantly reduce the maximum number of cases individual public defense attorneys will be allowed to handle each year. The revised standards, approved by the WSBA in March 2024, aim to provide public defenders with more time to dedicate to each case to ensure effective assistance of counsel.
Under the revised standards, the maximum number of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases a public defender can handle yearly will decrease from 280 cases in 2025-26 to just 120 case credits by 2027. The current cap is 400 cases per year.
The new guidelines are estimated to cause an increase in the city's general fund budget by $656,000 in 2025. The increase is on top of the $636,903 the city had already appropriated for contract public defenders in 2024. In total, Olympia is projected to need over $1.2 million for court-appointed attorneys in 2025 to comply with the revised standards.
The driving force of the new standards is a National Public Defense Study published in July 2023 that examined the workloads of public defenders across 17 jurisdictions.
“It calculated the average time it takes for public defenders to handle various types of cases, and the conclusion was that defenders have insufficient time to provide effective assistance to their clients under the existing standards,” Whaley told the committee members.
The study also found insufficient funding for support staff, which is another critical component of effective public defense.
Whaley noted that the revised standards drastically reduce the number of public defense cases an attorney can accept in a given year. The idea is to give more time and dedication to meet the standard of “reasonably effective assistance counsel,” as defined by professional norms and rules of conduct.
Impacts to Olympia's 2025 budget
Whaley said implementing the new standards in Olympia means a dramatic decrease in the maximum number of case credits a public defender may handle per year. Olympia will need more public defenders to handle the same overall caseload.
Along with the reduced caseloads, the new standards also increase the estimated cost per case. Whaley projected the cost per case would rise from $350 currently to $520 under the 280 case credit maximum in the second half of 2025. This higher per-case cost contributes to the overall budget increase.
While recognizing the need for updated standards and the importance of providing quality public defense services, City Manager Jay Burney commented that the leap from 288 down to 120 case credits per year was too drastic. He said that the more than $600,000 increase in one year is likely to grow to over $1 million as the standards are fully implemented, with no funding support from the state to help offset these costs.
Burney emphasized Olympia's community court program’s role in addressing the challenges posed by the revised public defense standards. He stressed the need to reevaluate the community court’s eligibility criteria and charging policies to ensure more defendants are diverted from the mainstream criminal justice system earlier.
Committee member Clark Gilman expressed the need for “reality checking” on the budget impacts, noting that even the initial step of doubling the public defense budget would only result in a 25-33% reduction in caseloads before the standards aim to reduce them by 75% to 25% of the current load, which Gilman described as a “phenomenal increase” in resources required. He agreed that the community court and other forms of restorative justice may be better suited to address the crimes and situations they see.
Gilman shared his experience visiting the jail and the court, which he observed that often “familiar faces” are involved in these cases, indicating they may be better served through alternative paths that reimagine public safety, rather than relying solely on the public defense system.
All committee members agreed to draft a letter to the Washington State Supreme Court, stating Olympia's concerns and perspectives on the revised standards. The letter would be submitted during the public comment period.
The committee also expressed interest in advocating for the state to provide funding support to help local governments implement the revised guidelines effectively.
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Tractor1
Another "Unfunded Mandate "imposed by the state on local governments. Force the state, and federal, governments to pay for things they feel are necessary.
Wednesday, August 28 Report this
JulesJames
Unfortunately, this accentuates the public defender-to-judge-and-elected-official pipeline. I'd rather vote for judges, legislators and executives who built their wisdom in the private sector. More founded and well-rounded decision-makers than career public employees.
Thursday, August 29 Report this
TheVirtualOne
This is the lawyers (WSBA) changing “standards” to line their own pockets at taxpayers expense. What a surprise!
Thursday, August 29 Report this
Claire
Once again, bullshit pays for bullshit policies. Will Olympia citizens ever wake up. Oh, no, they don't care, they are tenants and have no skin in the game. Sad.
Thursday, August 29 Report this
Southsoundguy
Disband the bar.
Thursday, August 29 Report this
JW
Why? The corrupt judges in Thurston county will just release every criminal immediately anyway.
Thursday, August 29 Report this
1Cochamamba9
HMMMMMMMM ... how about focusing on cutting corporate welfare ? Examples: outrageous, long term tax incentives to developers; forcing businesses to pay for cleaning up THEIR environmental messes.
Thursday, August 29 Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
Maybe we try to reduce the amount of criminals?
Friday, August 30 Report this
FirstOtter
>Gilman shared his experience visiting the jail and the court, which he observed that often “familiar faces” are involved in these cases, indicating they may be better served through alternative paths that reimagine public safety, rather than relying solely on the public defense system.
Cutting through the oh so careful wording and what this means is that most of these 'familiar faces' are career criminals, 'frequent flyers' in the system. They been there, done that, know the ropes. "Being better served through alternative paths'...not sure what THAT means but it sounds like 'lets try reasoning with this criminal, let's try rehabilitation, let's ''talk to him and get him to understand that his actions are wrong." The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and hope for different results.
The way to public safety is to put these career criminals (some of whom have more felonies than I have fingers) in prison and KEEP them there. They're not going to change their ways. You can't 'rehab' someone who doesn't feel he should be. Why should they? They make money, they get a hand slap from the judge, they get three hots and a cot...that's even more than the homeless guy on the street.
Sunday, September 1 Report this