Administration | Structure

There are more than 40,000 children involved in delinquency proceedings in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since 1972, state law has provided that each of these children is entitled to an attorney at every stage of the delinquency process. Despite this legal mandate, there are serious deficiencies in the delivery of indigent defense to accused and adjudicated youth. The availability and quality of defense representation varies widely across the Commonwealth. In failing to render effective advocacy, a system cannot protect individual rights, provide rehabilitation, or effectively hold youth accountable for their actions.

Author/Organization: American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center
Publication Date: 10/2003

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

 An Analysis of Problems at the Allegheny County Office of the Public Defender that Cause Systemic Violations of Clients’ Constitutional Right to Adequate Representation

Author/Organization: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA)
Publication Date: 10/2011

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

Gideon Alert: Tennessee Supreme Court proposes rule change allowing flat-fee contracting

BY David Carroll on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 4:11 PM

“When it comes to balancing the scales of justice for the poor with the expense, there simply are no easy answers,” concludes the Knoxville News Sentinel on August 21, 2011 in part of an in-depth, three-part series. The Tennessee Supreme Court proposed a new rule change that attempts to find an easy answer to controlling indigent defense costs by allowing flat-fee contracting for right to counsel services, but the Court has neglected to provide institutional safeguards that would protect the adequacy of representation.  If implemented, this move will buck the trend of other state Supreme Courts, in places like Iowa and Washington, that have recently banned these types of low-bid contracts because they create a direct financial conflict of interest between the attorney and each client.  Tennessee’s high court is accepting public comment on their proposed rule until September 1, 2011.

The National Legal Aid & Defender Association studied right to counsel services in the state of Tennessee in 1977. This is their report.

Author/Organization: National Legal Aid & Defender Association
Publication Date: 1977

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

The AOC was tasked by the Tennessee legislature with "conducting a study of the rising costs of indigent defense in the state and to develop a plan to reduce such costs. Such study shall examine, at a minimum, eligibility requirements, fee rates including sliding scale options, limits, verification processes, and utilization by judicial districts." This is the AOC's report from that study.

Author/Organization: Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts
Publication Date: 01/15/2011

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

 The Court is considering an amendment to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13 to provide for an alternative method of compensating attorneys who provide legal services to indigent persons pursuant to the rule. In summary, proposed new Section 7 of the rule would authorize the Administrative Director of the Courts to enter into contracts with attorneys, law firms or associations of attorneys to provide legal services to indigent persons for a fixed fee.

Author/Organization: Tennessee Supreme Court
Publication Date: 07/2011

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

The Constitution Project's response to Tennessee Court's solicitation for public comment on its proposed rule change allowing for flat-fee contracting in conflict cases.

Author/Organization: The Constitution Project
Publication Date: 08/19/2011

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

David Carroll's response to Tennessee Court's solicitation for public comment on its proposed rule change allowing for flat-fee contracting in conflict cases.

Author/Organization: David Carroll, NLADA
Publication Date: 08/17/2011

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

The Nevada Supreme Court's ADKT-411(January 2008) ordered that “each judicial district shall formulate and submit to the Nevada Supreme Court for approval by May 1, 2008, an administrative plan that, among other requirements, provides for the “appointment of trial counsel.” This plan sets forth the method of delivering services in Washoe County (Reno).

Author/Organization: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, chief judge of the Second Judicial District Court
Publication Date: 05/01/2008

Items contained in the NLADA Library do not and are not meant to constitute advice of any kind. Content in the NLADA Library is contributed by users. If you believe this material infringes your or any other person’s copyright or if you feel that the material is inappropriate, please report this to NLADA Staff by clicking below.

FLAG THIS CONTENT

Gideon Alert: Cochise County, Arizona contemplates contract system in light of important State Court decision

BY David Carroll on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 1:55 PM

“The insidiousness of overburdening defense counsel is that it can result in concealing from the courts, and particularly the appellate courts, the nature and extent of damage that is done to defendants by their attorneys' excessive caseloads,” declared the Arizona State Supreme Court in State v. Joe U. Smith, 140 Ariz. 355, 681 P.2d 1374 (Ariz. Apr. 4, 1984).  The Smith Court found that the lowest bid system for obtaining indigent defense counsel in Mohave County (Kingman) violated the defendant’s right to due process.  In light of the Smith case, Arizona counties struggle to provide fiscal predictability to the taxpaying public, while ensuring the rights to counsel and due process of each indigent defendant. The Wilcox Range News reported on August 10, 2011 that one county – Cochise County (Bisbee) – is currently considering a proposal to switch from an assigned counsel system paying an hourly rate of $50 to a system paying a “flat fee of $150 per misdemeanor case and $900 per felony case.”