Editorial
Cinching its belt for the public defense

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is right: The city has no choice but to cinch its belt. But he's wrong to unilaterally change the city's effective and well-regarded public-defense system. The risks associated with his hasty shift to competitive bidding for the contract are not worth the savings.

As a Seattle Times series recently revealed, too many jurisdictions in Washington provide inadequate indigent defense precisely because they use competitive bidding for their public-defender contracts.

The series found many instances where for-profit law firms bid low, then took on more cases than they could handle. The model has been widely blamed for huge caseloads, ineffective representation and overburdened attorneys. It can lead to overturned convictions and financial liability.

In contrast, Seattle's system works. The city pays King County, which uses three nonprofit firms to provide public-defender services for its Municipal Court. The county uses strict caseload limits and other guidelines to ensure proper legal representation for poor defendants. The system is not perfect, but it is often recognized as a national model.

Clearly, these are tough times for the city. After slashing spending by more than $100 million, the city faces another $25 million in cuts next year. Last year, the city discovered it was paying higher overhead than the county for its public defense. The revelation prompted further examination, which led to the plan to invite low-cost bidding for the public-defense contract from for-profit and nonprofit firms. The city expects to save about $300,000 a year.

Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis is confident working directly with a single primary contractor and including strict caseload limits in the contracts will not only save money, but will also improve accountability and quality. That remains to be seen.

Public defenders, Municipal Court judges and King County Bar Association leaders are understandably baffled by the move. Many have worked for decades to assure the region's poorest defendants receive effective representation. It was a mistake to make such a sweeping decision without their input.

As the experience of many other counties and states has illustrated, public defense is a hard thing to get right. Changing a model that works should only come after careful consideration and open discussion.