State’s public defense system “on the verge of collapse” due to burgeoning caseloads, lawyer shortages and insufficient funding.
Counties across Washington are preparing to meet a state mandate cutting the maximum number for cases of public defenders. Northwest Washington overall is better poised to meet the standards than other parts of the state, but counties could still face substantial budget impacts.
Despite having a quarter of the population of Snohomish County, Whatcom County has about the same number of felony caseloads.
According to Starck Follis, director of the Whatcom County Public Defender’s Office, the only reasonable explanation for this is that Whatcom files cases that Snohomish declines or diverts.
The Washington Supreme Court unanimously agreed on the new standards this summer, months after the state Office of Public Defense director told justices the state’s public defense system was “on the verge of collapse” due to burgeoning caseloads, lawyer shortages and insufficient funding.
The new standards cut caseload maximums by about 70% and take effect at the start of 2026. The hope is that doing so will improve the quality of indigent defense. Public defenders’ pay is not tied to the number of cases they take on, so fewer cases means they will have more time and effort to devote to each one.
The Court is allowing counties to make incremental steps toward full compliance by 2036.
Skagit and Whatcom Counties anticipate needing to dramatically increase their public defense budgets, including hiring more lawyers, while San Juan County doesn’t foresee needing to increase hiring or its public defense budget any time soon.
That’s because San Juan’s public defender caseloads have been well below current maximums, a result of the county’s low population and low crime rate.
On average, the county’s caseloads have been about 135 misdemeanor cases and about 20 felony cases, according to San Juan Deputy County Manager Tillery Williams. In comparison, the new standards put the maximum number of cases at 120 misdemeanors 47 felony cases, while the previous standard was 400 misdemeanors and 150 felonies. Unlike larger counties, San Juan’s cases are split between only a single in-house public defender and outside counsel.
San Juan County Manager Jessica Hudson doesn’t expect the new standards to impact San Juan County’s budget, at least not in the upcoming fiscal year.
“We’re in a pretty OK position not to need to look at additional staffing,” Hudson said. “However, things change all the time, so we’re gonna have to keep a pretty close eye on this year to year to see if we reach a point where we might need to consider additional staffing or additional contract work.”
Skagit County officials say the county will have to hire more public defenders in the short term and that its cost for public defense will more than triple. The county budgeted almost $6 million for public defense in 2025.
But Skagit officials foresee the financial impact extending well beyond just hiring additional public defenders.
“With a higher number of public defenders there will be more court filings, hearings and motions for the courts to schedule and respond to. As a result, we will need to hire more prosecutors, judges, clerks and support staff and ensure we have adequate physical space to host additional hearings and staff,” according to a statement from Skagit County Commissioners.
Meanwhile, Follis believes his office can put off additional hiring at least another year since caseloads are under the old standards.
“In 2027, 2028 and 2029 — we’ll see what happens,” he said.
Follis projected the county would need to go from 27 lawyers to between 60 and 70 to fully comply with the standards if prosecution levels stay the same. That change could more than double his office’s $8.5 million budget, although Follis said it’s unclear if the burden of fully implementing the new standards will fall entirely on his office, contracting attorneys or some combination of those.
‘Where’s the money going to come from?’
The majority of indigent defense is paid for by local governments, which means the costs associated with the caseload changes will fall almost entirely on local governments.
“My concern about the new caseload standards is, where’s the money going to come from?” Follis said. “To me, it was a policy change that did not have a plan behind it.”
A bill that would’ve increased state funding to cities and counties for public defense from about 3% to half by 2028 did not pass. A judge recently ruled counties could sue the state for more funding, opening the door for a potential lawsuit and, if counties win out, more funding.
“The hope of many stakeholders, including myself, is that the cost will be shared with the state and to not unduly burden the county,” Skagit County Public Defender Office Director Jeri Chavez said in a statement. “Splitting the cost of public defense between the county and state is a proposal that has been made by both public defense advocates and those who represent county governments. It is a fair approach.”
In the meantime, however, the combination of insufficient funding and lower caseloads could have negative consequences that Follis said could range from prosecutors not filing certain types of charges, judges dismissing cases for certain types of crimes or releasing individuals from jail if the county can’t provide them a lawyer within a certain period of time.
That hypothetical crisis is of particular concern given a general shortage of lawyers, especially those wanting to go into indigent defense.
“It’s not glamorous. It’s not as high paying; it’s hard. It’s emotionally draining,” Follis said. “I don’t know that (the new standards) are necessarily going to manufacture new lawyers out of thin air.”
The broader picture
Both Chavez and Follis said the new caseload limits and the funding demands that come with them highlight the broader need for new approaches within the justice system.
“I hope this gives all stakeholders; county commissioners, defense, prosecution, other county departments like the health department, other community partners like social service agencies; a sense of urgency to look at how we handle criminal justice in our community,” Chavez said.
“It’s the old adage, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” she continued. “If the criminal justice system is the hammer, and hammers just tripled in price, maybe we should start exploring other tools.”
Diverting individuals with low-level crimes out of the court system and into social services, for example, would not only address the root causes of those behaviors, like mental health, poverty, or substance use, but could also alleviate caseloads.
Whatcom’s diversion program has provided a justice system alternative to hundreds of individuals since it launched about five years ago.
“If we could get rid of 20% of the cases to diversion, it would make it much easier for us to comply with the standards as they change,” Follis said.
— By Sydnee Chapman
Also read in Salish Current:
• “Whatcom’s LEAD program offers lifeline, faces limits,” Aug. 7, 2025
• “Tribal court warrants to be enforceable by state authorities,” May 15, 2025
• “Local attorneys reaffirm commitment to the Constitution,” May 13, 2025
• “Commentary: The rule of law,” March 3, 2025
• “When ‘lock ‘em up’ doesn’t make sense,” June 25, 2024