Indigent Defense / Public Defender Systems
Assisting in the reform and improvement of indigent defense systems across the country.
Recent Articles & Developments
Restraining Excessive Defender Caseloads: The ABA Ethics Committee Requires Action |
 |
ABA Formal Opinion 06-441 As a special service to the public defender community, the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility is providing Formal Opinion 06-441 at no charge. Pursuant to agreement with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants will authorize duplication of multiple copies of ABA Formal Opinion 06-441 for non-profit purposes. Requests for duplication of copies should be addressed to
. |
 |
|
| Review of National Indigent Defense Developments Dialogue Magazine, Summer 2007 By Georgia Vagenas A round up of legislative and policy developments affecting state indigent defense systems. |
 |
|
| From The Chair... Dialogue Magazine, Winter 2007 By Deborah G. Hankinson, Chair of SCLAID Read the Chair's column on ABA Formal Opinion 06-441 regarding excessive defender caseloads. |
 |
|
One Year Later: Right to Counsel Still Elusive for Indigent Defendants in New Orleans |
 |
|
Recent Reports & Studies
Resources of the Prosecution and Indigent Defense Functions in Tennessee (May 2007) (PDF)
State Indigent Defense Commissions (December 2006)
State and County Expenditures for Indigent Defense Services in Fiscal Year 2005 (Report ) (Table ) - December 2006
Frequently Requested Publications
 |
Gideon's Broken Promise: America's Continuing Quest for Equal Justice A report on the ABA's hearings on the right to counsel in criminal proceedings, concluding that 40 years after the Gideon decision, the promise of equal justice for the poor remains unfulfilled in this country. |
 |
ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System (PDF) The Principles constitute the fundamental criteria necessary to design a system that provides effective, efficient, high quality, ethical, conflict-free legal representation for criminal defendants who are unable to afford an attorney. |
Upcoming Events
August 8, 2008
Annual Survey of Supreme Court Decisions – Criminal Cases
3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
Presidential CLE Center, New York, NY
ABA Annual Meeting
Cosponsored with the Criminal Justice Section
August 10, 2008
Miranda Warnings and Waivers: The Latest Research and its Practical Applications
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Presidential CLE Center, New York, NY
ABA Annual Meeting
Cosponsored with the Criminal Justice Section
- Highlignts from the 2008 Summit on Indigent Defense Improvement: A National Forum for Bar Leaders & Indigent Defense Leaders - Held February 8, 2008 - Los Angeles, CA
This year’s Summit was the most successful Summit yet, with over 100 people in attendance including, bar association leaders, heads of defender offices, leaders of national criminal justice organizations, members of the judiciary and many others dedicated to reforming indigent defense systems.
Pictured above are panelists from the plenary session Wrongful Convictions: Engaging in Critical Systemic Reform. Panelists included: Senator Rodney Ellis, Texas State Senator; Peter Neufeld, Co-director of the Innocence Project; John Terzano, President, The Justice Project; Gerald F. Uelmen, Executive Director, California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice; Herman Atkins, West Coast Coordinator, Innocence Project; and Adele Bernhard, Professor and Supervisor of Criminal Justice Clinics at Pace University Law.
This session began with Herman Atkins’ story. Mr. Atkins was wrongly convicted of a rape and exonerated after serving 11.5 years. Panelists focused on systemic issues that impact the ability of defenders (institutional and private) to provide competent representation and that, as a result, contribute to wrongful convictions, including: caseload pressures, lack of training, lack of investigators, experts and other resources, low fees, flat fee contracts, and absence of meaningful eligibility standards for appointment to assigned counsel panels, lack of parity with the prosecutorial agencies; absence of supervision, and inadequate access to information through pre-trial discovery.
