Last week, Allegheny County Controller Corey O’Connor announced an audit of the county’s system of providing attorneys for criminal defendants who can’t afford representation, also known as indigent defense. This is a vital step towards cataloging the deficiencies of a system that is uniquely implemented, and uniquely flawed, in Pennsylvania.
Mr. O’Connor’s move is long overdue, and should focus on some well-established areas of concern. The Commonwealth is one of only two states (the other is South Dakota) that receives no state funding or oversight for providing state-appointed indigent defense. This means it’s completely up to counties to handle the selection, compensation and training of these lawyers in a patchwork system that varies from county to county.
Gov. Josh Shapiro placed a first-of-its-kind investment of $10 million in his budget, but it was decreased to $7.5 million and remains bottled up as part of ongoing fiscal code negotiations.
This has led to myriad issues in Allegheny County, the most glaring of which is the lack of uniform data collection regarding the outcomes of indigent defense cases, something the Allegheny County Bar Association noted in a study published last year.
The county has often collected data to improve transparency and monitor progress, launching numerous dashboards to display data collection in real time. Yet there are massive gaps in knowledge regarding the quality of indigent defense. It’s impossible to determine whether the local system follows best practices without proper data collection.
Recent findings show that Black county defendants are 5.8 times more likely to be charged with a crime than white ones. The system’s shortcomings cannot be mitigated without a more thorough understanding of defendants’ outcomes, and launching new methods to track these should be a top priority of Mr. O’Connor’s audit.
The ACBA report also noted the insufficient compensation for indigent defense lawyers, starting with low hourly pay as well as a divisive “capping” system, which dictates the maximum amount lawyers can receive for different types of cases. Advocates say these caps disincentivize attorneys from taking on complex cases, since they won’t be compensated for the additional time required to complete them.
Some progress on this front has already been made: This June, President Judge Kim Berkeley Clark ordered an increase in compensation for court-appointed attorneys, with new rates ranging from $80 to $110 an hour and increased compensation caps for other services.
However, the Allegheny Lawyers Initiative for Justice, a coalition of local lawyers, noted that the “system is still severely underfunded” and that “pay rates still lag far behind similar locales.” (Before the recent boost, Allegheny even lagged behind nearby rural counties.) The new audit should explore other funding models that raise caps or eliminate them entirely to ensure low compensation doesn’t pose a barrier for defendants who have a right to quality representation.
Pennsylvania’s county-led indigent defense system has been running without state oversight or accountability for far too long. The county’s audit is a necessary investigation into the system, and will hopefully inspire increased data collection, a fairer compensation system and ultimately better outcomes for poor defendants.
First Published: December 8, 2023, 10:30 a.m.
