In an audit released Thursday, Allegheny County Controller Corey O’Connor raised concerns that public defenders’ heavy caseloads may make it difficult to provide effective representation.
“Attorneys, defendants and advocates have long raised concerns about the ability of public defenders with high caseloads to provide effective legal representation as required by the U.S. Constitution, and I am pleased our audit can provide our policymakers and County leaders with vital information as they consider future budgets and operations,” said O’Connor, who also is running for Pittsburgh Mayor.
His audit recommended the county improve its processes for analyzing and managing attorneys’ caseloads.
According to O’Connor, 36 of the 42 trial attorneys in the public defender’s office maintained caseloads above the national average. They would need to work an additional 57,868 hours per year to meet the caseload standards, O’Connor said. In one instance, an attorney’s workload indicated that individual would need to work more than three times their available hours to meet the caseload standard.
“Despite the best efforts by these dedicated attorneys, handling caseloads that require double or triple daily working hours is unsustainable,” O’Connor said, suggesting the county implement new caseload management processes and hire more investigators, social workers and legal support staff.
The audit raised concerns that the existing system results in disproportionate caseloads for attorneys. When some attorneys carry excessive loads, the audit said, “the quality of representation could suffer, impacting case outcomes.”
“I could not agree more that the Office of the Public Defender needs to improve attorney caseload management and analysis,” Chief Public Defender Lena Bryan-Henderson wrote in response to the audit’s findings.
She rejected a suggestion from the audit that requiring more stringent requirements to show people cannot afford other legal representation would not help reduce the office’s workload.
“Implementing more stringent documentation requirements could create unnecessary barriers for individuals already facing significant hardships, without any proven benefits to case outcomes or administrative efficiency,” she wrote.