Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to JuCR 9.2 Stds - Standards for Indigent Defense (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for JuCR 9.2 Stds - Standards for Indigent Defense

Purpose: The Council on Public Defense and the Board of Governors recommend the following three amendments to address questions raised during implementation of the required certification of compliance with the standards.

History. On July 8, 2010, the Washington Supreme Court adopted amendments to CrR 3.1 ("Right to and Assignment of Lawyer"), CrRLJ 3.1 ("Right to and Assignment of Lawyer") and JuCR 9.2 ("Additional Right to Representation by Lawyer"). The amendments provided:

Before appointing a lawyer for an indigent person, or at the first appearance of the lawyer in the case, the court shall require the lawyer to certify to the court that he or she complies with the applicable Standards for Indigent Defense Services to be approved by the Supreme Court.

The Washington Supreme Court adopted several standards as part of the indigent defense certification process, including Standard 3. The effective date of Standard 3 was October 1, 2012, with the exception of Standard 3.4, which was effective October 1, 2013, EXCEPT paragraph 3, misdemeanor caseload limits, which is effective January 1, 2015.

Amendments.
The suggested amendments relate to Standards for Indigent Defense 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6:

Standard 3.3 - Experience: The suggested amendments clarify that attorney experience is a factor in the composition of case types, but is not a factor in adjusting the applicable numerical caseload limits. The suggested amendments further add that attorneys with less than six months of full-time criminal defense experience as an attorney should not be assigned more than two-thirds of the applicable maximum numerical caseload limit.

Standard 3.4 - Caseload Limits: The suggested amendments allow a proportional reduction of an attorney's maximum caseload limits when attorneys are assigned to represent groups of clients at first appearance, arraignment, or routine review hearing calendars calls, with no expectation of future representation. Attorneys at those hearings do not need to count each case for purposes of their caseload limit; with the exception that resolution of a case by a guilty plea to criminal charges on a first appearance or arraignment docket counts as one case.

Standard 3.5 - Case Counting and Weighting. The suggested amendments clarify that the paragraph addresses case weighting, as well as case counting, and move language regarding guilty pleas at arraignment or first appearance from 3.5 to 3.4.

Standard 3.6 - Case Weighting Examples. The suggested amendments clarify that the paragraph sets forth examples of case weighting systems, but is not an exhaustive list, and move language regarding first appearance or arraignment dockets from 3.6 to 3.4.

GR 9 Cover Sheet for Amendments to Standards for Indigent Defense Services