Public Defense Standards Are Changing: Part 2

Editor's Note: The caseload reduction figure provided as an example in this blog post has been updated to reflect the correct amount based on the new rule. 

In 2024, the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) adopted revised Standards for Indigent Defense Services (WSBA Standards), setting new caseload limits. The WSBA then submitted a proposed amendment to the Washington Supreme Court (Court), petitioning it to adopt the WSBA’s new caseload limits.

After receiving a substantial number of public comments, with public hearings on September 25, 2024, and November 13, 2024, the Court issued an Interim Order amending Supreme Court Rule CrR 3.1 (Court Standards) and establishing new caseload limits for indigent defense starting on January 1, 2026.

We wrote about the WSBA Standards in May, 2024 (Public Defense Standards Are Changing: What Counties and Cities Need to Know), and this blog serves as a Part 2 to the original. It will address some frequently asked questions about how the Court’s Interim Order changes caseload limits, how it will affect Washington local governments, and what should be known about efforts to compel the state to provide financial support.

How Does the Interim Order Change Caseload Limits?

The Court adopted the WSBA Standards in two respects:

1. Each criminal case is assigned a “case credit,” and public defenders will be limited to a number of case credits per year.
2. The number of misdemeanor case credits a public defender can handle in a single year shall be 120 case credits. For felonies, it's 47 case credits. This standard will be implemented in phases beginning on January 1, 2026.

How Long Do Local Governments Have to Implement the New Caseload Limits?

The Interim Order gives local governments 10 years to implement the caseload limits starting from January 1, 2026, while the WSBA Standards established a three-year timeline. Under the Interim Order, Washington local governments are required to reduce the caseload of their public defenders each year by 10% until 2036.

The 10% reduction is based on the caseload limit of 400 unweighted cases or 300 weighted cases. For example, if a city used an unweighted limit of 400 cases in the year 2025, it must reduce its caseload, in total, by 280 cases or 28 cases per year by 2036. The Interim Order encourages Washington local governments to implement the final caseload limits on an expedited timeline.

Was WSBA’s Proposed Case Weighting System Adopted?

No, the Court explicitly declined to adopt the WSBA’s proposed case weighing system. This means that cities can continue to use an unweighted case count system.

Should Local Governments Follow WSBA Standards?

It depends. RCW 10.101.030 states that the WSBA Standards “should serve as guidelines” to local governments.

The WSBA Standards also provide that agencies provide reasonable compensation for expert witnesses necessary for preparation and presentation of the case (Standard 4.A) and maintain specific ratios of investigators (Standard 6.B), mitigation specialists (Standard 4.B), and legal assistants/paralegals (Standard 7.B) for each public defender. Public defense attorneys must also have access to administrative services necessary for legal representation, including consistent access to interpreter services (Standard 5).

All of these standards should be integrated into current public defense contracts.

The Court Standards and the WSBA Standards Conflict. Which One Controls?

It's critical to note that the WSBA Standards and the Court Standards apply to two different groups. The Court Standards clearly state that they apply to attorneys and the courts. The WSBA Standards clarify that the quarterly certification public defense attorneys must complete is certification with the Court Standards, not the WSBA Standards. This means that attorneys accepting public defense matters must, at a minimum, meet the Court Standards and not the WSBA Standards.

Under RCW 10.101.030, the WSBA Standards serve as guidelines to cities and counties. As we said in Part One, many jurisdictions adopt the WSBA Standards into their public defense contracting and would therefore have to comply with the WSBA caseload standards. A local government could switch to the caseload limit in the Court Standards instead, but the other standards, such as Standards 5, 6, and 7, should still be adopted and followed by local governments.

Should We Expect Further Changes?

Yes. The Court specifically states: “Rule amendments concerning revised caseload standards will be announced in the near future, once the court’s review is complete.”

It should be noted that the Court plans to evaluate the progress and impacts of the Court Standards in 2029.

Will the State Help Fund Public Defense Services?

SB 5404 was introduced in the last legislative session but was not passed into law. In 2023, the Washington Association of Counties (WSAC) filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington, arguing that the state's current funding structure for public defense was inadequate and violated both the 6th and 14 Amendments.

On July 22, 2025, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II, held that the counties had standing to sue the state. Presumably, if WSAC prevails in its lawsuit, the state could be forced to dramatically increase public defense funding, not unlike what occurred with public school funding after the McCleary v. Washington litigation.

Conclusion

The Interim Order affirms the WSBA Standards’ dramatic reduction in caseloads for public defenders but provides a longer implementation timeline. Local government should budget for at least a 10% reduction in the available caseload of each of its public defenders starting in 2026. This is in addition to the administrative services, expert services, and other costs required under the WSBA standards. There will no doubt be more changes to the indigent defense standards as the Court finalizes its standards.

In addition to budgeting for these costs, Washington local government should stay apprised of efforts to get the state to fund public defense services, whether through legislation or litigation. As the local governments begin implementing the lower caseload limits, we should expect efforts to compel the state to fund public defense services to intensify.