Background The Indigent Defense Task Force recognizes that there have been, and
will continue to be, a variety of providers of indigent defense in the
State of Oregon. Because of that variety, it is not possible to determine
an appropriate weighted caseload for all providers. The Task Force determined
that the Metropolitan Public Defender (MPD) offers the model that is most
efficient in terms of scale. The MPD is the largest office by volume of
cases in the state, and is the most experienced in managing caseloads.
The MPD has a high level of staff support and clerical support. These
levels of staff and clerical support are not available in other settings
and substantially increase the ability of counsel to handle cases. As
a result, adjustments to factor in the lack of available resources are
necessary in determining maximum caseloads in other settings. In 1993, the MPD established a unit valuation system to determine the
number of cases each attorney in the office could handle each year. The
MPD system gave cases a unit value based on the anticipated time demands.
Unit values range from 100 to 1. The MPD assumed in the valuation that
a 'mythical competent attorney' could effectively handle 600 units per
year. The MPD, in its contract proposal of October, 1993, proposed these
unit values and has worked with them under the contract that was awarded.
Established Unit Values The first step in the process of determining a weighted caseload is to
determine the average time demand expected of a particular type
of case. This analysis assumes that some cases will take more time and
other cases will take less and seeks to determine what the average time
is only in relation to other cases. In other words, a minimum unit value
is determined and unit values are attributed to each type of case. In
essence, unit values are a comparison of the expected time commitment
for handling certain types of cases in relation to other types of cases.
Obviously substantial felonies are expected to take more time than misdemeanors.
The unit value analysis put forth by the MPD proposal seeks to compare
time anticipated for relative types of cases. Maximum Caseload Per Attorney Per Year The second step in the analysis is to determine the maximum number of
units that a criminal defense attorney working a full load, i.e. a full
time equivalent (FTE) attorney, could handle over the course of a year.
The MPD proposal assumed that the 'mythical competent defense attorney'
could handle 600 units per year. This meant that in applying the unit
valuation tables, a full caseload for an attorney would be 6 felony level
11 cases in one year or at the other end of the spectrum, 600 drug diversion
cases in one year. Assumptions As stated in the introductory paragraph of this Chapter, the MPD has
a high level of staff support. This reaches the level of one investigator
and one trial assistant per attorney for felony and juvenile cases and
.5 investigator and .5 trial assistant per attorney for misdemeanor cases.
Where office support staff is less, corresponding adjustments would have
to be made in determining the maximum caseload of a public defender office.
Because the private bar does not handle the volume that would create the
efficiencies derived through the MPD system, the maximum caseload values
have little relevancy to private bar providers. Additional Reasons for Adjustments The MPD has unique circumstances that do not exist outside Multnomah
County. The physical proximity of jail, courthouse, District Attorney
and defender office, combined with the physical proximity of crime scenes
and witnesses, virtually eliminate travel. The concentration of volume allows for specialization within the office.
This reduces the need for legal research. It also reduces time committed
to plea bargaining, as the volume of similar cases that have gone before
establish the likely results and penalties. All counties other than Multnomah County have less case volume and greater
travel time. Inefficiencies increase as either volume decreases or travel
increases. As a result, the maximum caseload standards in this report
would be impossible to approach outside of Multnomah County. Conclusion The Committee believes that the MPD proposal is a reasonable one to adopt
as a maximum caseload standard in that the MPD office proposal
was developed in Oregon by the largest and best staffed public defender
office, which is believed to have maximum caseload-handling capability.
It is anticipated that adjustments would be appropriate for defender offices
that do not have the same amount of support staff per lawyer or the same
volume of cases. Further adjustments would have to be made for less than
full-time attorneys and private attorneys who are taking conflict cases
as a part of their practice. The adoption of a unit valuation system and
a maximum caseload per FTE defense attorney is meant to be a guide, subject
to review.
Maximum Caseload Standards
For Defense Counsel
Table Of Unit Values
And Corresponding Maximum Caseload Per Attorney Per Year For Large Volume Defense Practice (MPD) In Multnomah County |
TYPE
OF CASE
|
UNIT
VALUATION |
@600
ATTY/YR |
Felonies Misdemeanors Msd ( inc. misdemeanor traffic cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Msd PV 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Juvenile Delinquency Level 11-100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delinquency Level 8-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delinquency Level 1-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Misdemeanor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adult Termination of Parental Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Child Termination of Parental Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adult Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Child Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizens Review Board Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Child Welfare Act Cases Adult Termination of Parental Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Child Termination of Parental Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adult Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Child Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizens Review Board Hearings Civil Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drug Diversion (STOF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
. . . . . 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . |
. . . 400 . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . 600 . . . . . . 600 . . . |