Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1903RESOLUTION NO. / f' 03 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, adopting a new resolution adopting indigent defense standards for indigent defense services provided to the city of Kent and repealing Resolution No. 1843. RECITALS A. The city of Kent prosecutes misdemeanor offenses that arE) committed by adults within the Kent city limits. The misdemeanor offenses are filed into the Kent Municipal Court. B. In accordance with the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 22 of the Washington Constitution, persons charged with misdemeanors who are deemed indigent are entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at the public expense. C. Chapter 10.101 RCW establishes a process for determining indigency, and requires that municipalities adopt standards for the delivery of criminal defense services to the indigent. D. The City currently contracts with a law firm located within the city limits of Kent for the provision of indigent defense services. In addition, the City contracts with other defense attorneys to provide 1 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution indigent defense services in the event there is a conflict of interest that prevents the main firm from representing a defendant. The City's Human Services Division manages the indigent defense contracts. E. The City prides itself in providing all indigent defendants with the highest quality public defense available at a reasonable cost to the public. In furtherance of this effort, and in accordance with Chapter 10.101 RCW, the City adopts the standards set forth in this resolution for the delivery of public defense services. F. These standards are intended to be consistent with state law, the Standards for Indigent Defense adopted by the Washington Supreme Court, and case law interpreting the constitutionality of systems for the provision of public defense services. In accordance with RCW 10.101.030, the standards endorsed by the Washington State Bar Association served as guidelines for the establishment of these standards .. These standards are supplemented by the various contracts for public defense services entered into by the City and various law firms and attorneys. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION 5ECTION 1. -The following standards apply to all indigent defense attorney services provided to the city of Kent. Definitions A. Attorney. As used in these standards, the term "attorney" shall mean an attorney under contract with the city of Kent for the provision of indigent defense services, and shall also mean the law firm or solo practice 2 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution for which the attorney works. These standards shall also apply to each attorney working for a law firm under contract with the City for the provision of indigent defense services. B. Defendant. The term "defendant" shall mean a person who has been charged with a misdemeanor offense in the Kent Municipal Court, and who is represented by an attorney as the term attorney is defined in these standards. It shall also mean any suspect who is being detained for investigation of driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol or marijuana (RCW 46.61.503), or physical control of any vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504 ), for the purpose of consulting with the attorney prior to deciding whether to provide a sample of breath or blood. Standard 1: Compensation The City's contracts for indigent defense services shall provide for payment at a rate competitive for like services in the state of Washington and in the South King County area in particular. No contract for indigent defense services shall require the attorney to pay any compensation to another attorney in the event the attorney is disqualified from representing a defendant due to a conflict of interest. Standard 2: Duties and Responsibilities of Attorneys Attorneys shall provide services to defendants in a professional, skilled manner consistent with the Standards for Indigent Defense established by the Washington Supreme Court, the Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable case law and court rules defining the duties of the attorney, and the rights of defendants. At all times during the representation of a defendant, the attorney's primary and most fundamental responsibility shall be to promote and protect the interests of the defendant. 3 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution Standard 3: Caseload Limits. Types of Cases and Limitations on Private Practice The City hereby incorporates by reference Standard 3 of the Standards for Indigent Defense established by the Washington Supreme Court, including amendments through August 15, 2014. A copy of Standard 3 is attached hereto by reference as Exhibit A. Standard 4: Responsibility for Expert Witness Fees and Other costs Attorneys shall be free to retain experts and investigators of the attorney's choosing, and may apply to the court for expert witness fees pursuant to applicable court rules. In no case should attorneys be forced to select experts from a list pre-approved by either the court or prosecution. Standard 5: Administrative Expenses Any contract for the provision of indigent defense services should provide for or include administrative costs associated with providing legal representation. These costs shall include but are not limited to travel, telephones, law library including electronic legal research, financial accounting, case management systems, computers and software, office space and supplies, training, meeting reporting requirements imposed by the Washington Supreme Court Standards for Indigent Defense, and other costs incurred in the day-to-day management of indigent defense services. Attorneys shall maintain an office that accommodates confidential meetings with defendants, and a postal address and adequate telephone services to ensure prompt response to defendant contact. Standard 6: Investigators Attorneys shall use investigation services as appropriate. 4 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution Standard 7: Support Services Attorneys shall employ an adequate number of staff to ensure the effective performance of indigent defense services. Attorneys shall have access to interpreters and investigators, and other experts and support staff to provide for the effective assistance of counsel. Standard 8: Reports of Attorney Activity and Vouchers Attorneys shall maintain a case reporting and case management information system, and the attorneys shall provide reports to the City in a form and at increments as agreed to by the City and the attorneys. Attorneys shall not be required to compromise any attorney confidences when providing these reports. Vouchers and billing shall be submitted and paid in accordance with a contract for indigent defense services. Standard 9: Training Attorneys shall engage in regular training in the areas of criminal defense law including a minimum of seven hours of continuing legal education annually in areas relating to criminal defense. Attorneys should have the opportunity to attend courses that foster trial advocacy skills and to review professional publications and other media. Standard 10: Supervision. Monitoring and Evaluation of Attorneys Attorneys shall establish a system in which more experienced attorneys regularly review the work of less experienced attorneys. The more experienced attorneys shall review the case outcomes, caseloads, and any other information deemed appropriate, and shall regularly monitor the less experienced attorney's interactions with defendants, case preparation, and in-court activities. Attorneys may seek input from defendants, judges and other attorneys if appropriate. 5 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution Standard 11: Substitution of Attorneys and Assignment of Contracts Attorneys should not subcontract with another law firm or attorney and should remain involved in the provision of services to the defendant. The names and experience levels of the attorneys providing services to the City shall be provided to the City. A contract with an attorney or firm shall address the procedures for continuing representation of defendants upon the termination of the contract. Alternate or conflict attorneys should be available for substitution in conflict situations at no cost to an attorney declaring a conflict. Standard 12; Qya!jfjcatjons of Attorneys The City hereby incorporates by reference Standards 14.1, 14.2(K), and 14.4 of the Standards for Indigent Defense established by the Washington Supreme Court, including amendments through August 15, 2014. A copy of these standards is attached hereto by reference as Exhibit B. Standard 13: Disposition of pefendant Complaints Attorneys shall establish a process for responding to complaints made by defendants. At a minimum, all complaints shall be reviewed by one or more senior attorneys of the law firm. Complaints that are not resolved by the attorney shall be directed by the attorney to the City's Housing and Human Services Division for evaluation and follow-up, or may be directed to the Washington State Bar Association. Attorneys shall fully cooperate in the City's investigation process. Standard 14: Cayse for Termination of Indigent oefense Services and Removal of Attorney Contracts with the attorney shall include grounds for termination. Such grounds for termination may be based on good cause, which shall include, but shall not be limited to, a failure of the attorney to provide effective 6 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution assistance of counsel, a disregard of the rights and interests of the defendant, a willful disregard for these standards, or a breach of the requirements of the contract. Standard 15: Non-Discrimination The City shall not discriminate against a law firm or attorneys for the provision of indigent defense services on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, age, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Attorneys shall not discriminate in the hiring of employees or the provision of services pursuant to a contract with the City on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, age, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Both the City and the attorneys shall comply with all federal, state, and local non-discrimination requirements. Standard 16: Guidelines for Awarding Defense Contracts A contract for public defense services should be awarded only after a reasonable determination that the attorney or firm can meet these standards. A contract should not be awarded on the basis of cost alone. Contracts should only be awarded to a firm where at least one attorney in the firm has at least one year of trial experience. City attorneys, prosecutors and law enforcement officers should not select the attorneys who will provide indigent defense services. SECTION 2. Resolution No. 1843 -Repealed. Upon the effective date of this resolution, Resolution No. 1843 is repealed and will no longer be effective for application in the city of Kent. SECTION 3. -Savings. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. 7 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution SECTION 4. -Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5. -Corrections bv City Clerk. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution or its exhibit, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or resolution numbering and section/subsection numbering. SECTION 6. -Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the ,.P/7/.1' -·-r-city of Kent, Washington, this ""'v ~ day of ·-,t~fh:/a~::J , 2015. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the city of Kent this""--'~,~:-:! of __:::,~~~+-' 2015. APPROVED AS TO FORM: T~J~~~ 8 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. by the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, the -·· -"=--day of .::::::Wuz.t-,:4 , 2015. v 9 Indigent Defense Standards Resolution Exhibit A Standard 3. Caseload Limits and Types of Cases Standard 3.1. The contract or other employment agreement shall specify the types of cases for which representation shall be provided and the maximum number of cases which each attorney shall be expected to handle. Standard 3.1 adopted effective October 1, 2012 Standard 3.2. The caseload of public defense attorneys shall allow each lawyer to give each client the time and effort necessary to ensure effective representation. Neither defender organizations, county offices, contract attorneys, nor assigned counsel should accept workloads that, by reason of their excessive size, interfere with the rendering of quality representation. As used in this Standard, "quality representation" is intended to describe the minimum level of attention, care, and skill that Washington citizens would expect of their state's criminal justice system. Standard 3.2 adopted effective October 1, 2012 Standard 3.3. General Considerations. Caseload limits reflect the maximum caseloads for fully supported full-time defense attorneys for cases of average complexity and effort in each case type specified. Caseload limits assume a reasonably even distribution of cases throughout the year. The increased complexity of practice in many areas will require lower caseload limits. The maximum caseload limit should be adjusted downward when the mix of case assignments is weighted toward offenses or case types that demand more investigation, legal research and writing, use of experts, use of social workers, or other expenditures of time and resources. Attorney caseloads should be assessed by the workload required, and cases and types of cases should be weight~d accordingly. If a defender or assigned counsel is carrying a mixed caseload including cases from more than one category of cases, these standards should be applied proportionately to determine a full caseload. In jurisdictions where assigned counsel or contract attorneys also maintain private law practices, the caseload should be based on the percentage of time the lawyer devotes to public defense. The experience of a particular attorney is a factor in the composition of cases in the attorney's caseload. The following types of cases fall within the intended scope of the caseload limits for criminal and juvenile offender cases in Standard 3.4 and must be taken into account when assessing an attorney's numerical caseload: partial case representations, sentence violations, specialty or therapeutic courts, transfers, extraditions, representation of material witnesses, petitions for conditional release or final discharge, and other matters that do not involve a new criminal charge. Definition of case. A case is defined as the filing of a document with the court naming a person as defendant or respondent, to which an attorney is appointed in order to provide representation. In courts of limited jurisdiction multiple citations from the same incident can be counted as one case. Standard 3.3 adopted effective October 1, 2012 Page 1 of4 Exhibit A Standard 3.4. Case/oad Limits. The caseload of a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should not exceed the following: 150 Felonies per attorney per year; or 300 Misdemeanor cases per attorney per year or, in jurisdictions that have not adopted a numerical case weighting system as described in this Standard, 400 cases per year; or 250 Juvenile Offender cases per attorney per year; or 80 open Juvenile Dependency cases per attorney; or 250 Civil Commitment cases per attorney per year; or 1 Active Death Penalty trial court case at a time plus a limited number of non- death-penalty cases compatible with the time demand of the death penalty case and consistent with the professional requirements of Standard 3.2; or 36 Appeals to an appellate court hearing a case on the record and briefs per attorney per year. (The 36 standard assumes experienced appellate attorneys handling cases with transcripts of an average length of 350 pages. If attorneys do not have significant appellate experience and/or the average transcript length is greater than 350 pages, the caseload should be accordingly reduced.) Full time Rule 9 interns who have not graduated from law school may not have caseloads that exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the caseload limits established for full-time attorneys. Standard 3.4 adopted effective October 1, 2013, EXCEPT paragraph 3, misdemeanor caseload limits, adopted effective January 1, 2015. Standard 3.5. Case Counting. Attorneys may not engage in a case weighting system, unless pursuant to written policies and procedures that have been adopted and published by the local government entity responsible for employing, contracting with, or appointing them. A weighting system must: A. recognize the greater or lesser workload required for cases compared to an average case based on a method that adequately assesses and documents the workload involved; B. be consistent with these Standards, professional performance guidelines, and the Rules of Professional Conduct; C. not institutionalize systems or practices that fail to allow adequate attorney time for quality representation; D. be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect current workloads; and E. be filed with the State of Washington Office of Public Defense. Cases should be assessed by the workload required. Cases and types of cases should be weighted accordingly. Cases which are complex, serious, or contribute more significantly to attorney workload than average cases should be weighted upward. In addition, a case weighting system should consider factors that might justify a case weight of less than one case. Page 2 of 4 Exhibit A Notwithstanding any case weighting system, resolutions of cases by pleas of guilty to criminal charges on a first appearance or arraignment docket are presumed to be rare occurrences requiring careful evaluation of the evidence and the law, as well as thorough communication with clients, and must be counted as one case. Standard 3.5 adopted effective October 1, 2012 Standard 3.6. Case Weighting. The following are some examples of situations where case weighting might result in representations being weighted as more or less than one case. The listing of specific examples is not intended to suggest or imply that representations in such situations should or must be weighted at more or less than one case, only that they may be, if established by an appropriately adopted case weighting system. A. Case Weighting Upward. Serious offenses or complex cases that demand more-than-average investigation, legal research, writing, use of experts, use of social workers, and/or expenditures of time and resources should be weighted upward and counted as more than one case. B. Case Weighting Downward. Listed below are some examples of situations where case weighting might justify representations being weighted less than one case. However, care must be taken because many such representations routinely involve significant work and effort and should be weighted at a full case or more. i. Cases that result in partial representations of clients, including client failures to appear and recommencement of proceedings, preliminary appointments in cases in which no charges are filed, appearances of retained counsel, withdrawals or transfers for any reason, or limited appearances for a specific purpose (not including representations of multiple cases on routine dockets). ii. Cases in the criminal or offender case type that do not involve filing of new criminal charges, including sentence violations, extraditions, representations of material witnesses, and other matters or representations of clients that do not involve new criminal charges. Noncomplex sentence violations should be weighted as at least 1/3 of a case. iii. Cases in specialty or therapeutic courts if the attorney is not responsible for defending the client against the underlying charges before or after the client's participation in the specialty or therapeutic court. However, case weighting must recognize that numerous hearings and extended monitoring of client cases in such courts significantly contribute to attorney workload and in many instances such cases may warrant allocation of full case weight or more. iv. Cases on a criminal or offender first appearance or arraignment docket where the attorney is designated, appointed, or contracted to represent groups of clients on that docket without an expectation of further or continuing representation and which are not resolved at that time (except by dismissal). In such circumstances, consideration should be given to adjusting the caseload limits appropriately, recognizing that case weighting must reflect that attorney workload includes the Page 3 of4 Exhibit A time needed for appropriate client contact and preparation as well as the appearance time spent on such dockets. v. Representation of a person in a court of limited jurisdiction on a charge which, as a matter of regular practice in the court where the case is pending, can be and is resolved at an early stage of the proceeding by a diversion, reduction to an infraction, stipulation on continuance, or other alternative noncriminal disposition that does not involve a finding of guilt. Such cases should be weighted as at least 1/3 of a case. Standard 3.6 adopted effective October 1, 2012 Page 4 of4 EXHIBIT B Standard 14. Qualifications of Attorneys Standard 14.1. In order to assure that indigent accused receive the effective assistance of counsel to which they are constitutionally entitled, attorneys providing defense services shall meet the following minimum professional qualifications: A. Satisfy the minimum requirements for practicing law in Washington as determined by the Washington Supreme Court; and B. Be familiar with the statutes, court rules, constitutional provisions, and case law relevant to their practice area; and C. Be familiar with the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct; and D. Be familiar with the Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation approved by the Washington State Bar Association; and E. Be familiar with the consequences of a conviction or adjudication, including possible immigration consequences and the possibility of civil commitment proceedings based on a criminal conviction; and F. Be familiar with mental health issues and be able to identify the need to obtain expert services; and G. Complete seven hours of continuing legal education within each calendar year in courses relating to their public defense practice. Standard 14.2. Attorneys' qualifications according to severity or type of case. K. Misdemeanor Cases. Each attorney representing a defendant involved in a matter concerning a simple misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor or condition of confinement, shall meet the requirements as outlined in Section 1. Standard 14.4. Legal Interns. A. Legal interns must meet the requirements set out in APR 9. B. Legal interns shall receive training pursuant to APR 9, and in offices of more than seven attorneys, an orientation and training program for new attorneys and legal interns should be held. Page 1 of 1