Newly-appointed public defense head mounts effort to stem Oregon's public defense pileup
When Gov. Tina Kotek fired the head of Oregon's embattled public defense commission in April, she gave its new director until June 1 to come up with a strategy to end the state's ongoing public defender shortage.
On Monday, Interim Executive Director Ken Sanchagrin announced just that: A 12-month-long, seven-point plan by the agency that seeks to expand contracts with lawyers and nonprofits across the state, increase voluntary caseloads for available attorneys and onboard law students who can be supervised while providing a defense for those accused of crimes.
The response marks the commission's first attempt at addressing the shortage since Kotek overhauled its leadership two months ago. It doesn't provide a timeline for exactly when the crisis should end, as Kotek requested in April, but Sanchagrin told reporters Monday that he estimates that counties most affected by the issue could see relief as early as mid-fall.
'We can make significant progress over the next 12 months, but I think that coming up with a date, as somebody who really lives in the data, that's not something that is really possible at this point,' he said during a Monday media briefing. 'Given the increases in filings, and then given also some of these new proposals that we've put out that may or may not also be impacted by some legislative decisions that are being made, that makes it extremely difficult.'
A Kotek press secretary said Monday that the governor could respond to the news on Tuesday. The announcement drew immediate praise from critics of the public defense agency's prior approaches to solving the crisis.
'We need to honor the hard work of public defenders and provide the appropriate level of representation and service for indigent defense. This plan does that with enhanced capacity and recruitment,' said Sen. Anthony Broadman, D-Bend, in a statement Monday. 'We will continue to leverage the Legislature's accountability and oversight functions to ensure the agency has the tools to execute this plan and resolve the crisis.'
The public defense commission is an independent body with power delegated by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, designed with the goal of ensuring representation and defense counsel for all Oregonians. In April, it made headlines after Kotek fired its head leader and slammed the then-estimated number of Oregonians without representation for being at 4,000, which she had called 'unacceptable.'
Oregon employs an array of centralized and deployable trial lawyers, public defenders, and nonprofit attorneys to help ensure that those who cannot afford an attorney are given proper defense, an obligation mandated by the U.S. and Oregon constitutions. The issue has long concerned officials, with a scathing 2019 study slamming Oregon's 'complex bureaucracy that collects a significant amount of indigent defense data, yet does not provide sufficient oversight or financial accountability.'
As of June 2, 3,779 people lack public defenders, according to the state's dashboard, though Sanchagrin's letter said that the number was upwards of 4,400 as of May 2025. The majority of cases involve the six 'crisis' counties: Coos, Douglas, Jackson, Marion, Multnomah and Washington. Approaches in each of those localities will vary, but according to the plan, about 40% of an identified 176 attorneys with extra case capacity are based in these areas.
'What we're hoping to do is to proactively work with those individuals to identify who is willing and who has the ability to take additional cases above and beyond current…limits amongst those individuals,' Sanchagrin said. 'Then we can build that expectation into our contracts on the front end, which means it will be able to better predict and forecast what our case needs are going to be in a given area.'
In a statement, the Oregon Judicial Department said it was 'encouraged by the urgency' demonstrated by Sanchagrin's plan.
'While we have not yet had the opportunity to fully review this detailed document, we support this step toward data-driven solutions and stand ready to assist the OPDC as needed to move forward,' wrote Chief Justice Meagan Flynn in a statement.
Some of the plan's ability to be implemented will hinge on current legislative and budget discussions currently underway at the state level, Sanchagrin said. Currently the Legislature is still negotiating the commission's final budget and considering House Bill 2614, which would declare the public defense crisis an emergency and extend contract availability until July 2033.
Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, helped lead the push in 2023 for legislation that allocated around $90 million to overhaul the public defense system. He told the Capital Chronicle on Monday that the plan represents the 'best opportunity we have for progress in sometime.' Citing ongoing negotiations, he declined to comment on the budget or the legislation but said 'we are giving them more than the baseline they need to be able to serve to succeed.'
'We've purposefully taken the long view that this whole session of recognizing that public defense must be integrated into all aspects and you need the entire system healthy,' he said. 'You can't just put money into one compartment and say, OK, somehow it's going to work out.'
The amount of in-custody unrepresented individuals has sharply decreased since January — around 30%, according to the commission. Much of that reduction, it says, is because of the work of its trial division, which has taken over 2,200 cases and deploys across the state to assist in cases requiring multijurisdictional authority or high levels of expertise to put on a defense.
Under the new plan, the trial division will seek out new counties and jurisdictions in which it can intervene in the crisis, said Aaron Jeffers, the division's chief deputy defender.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Eaton fire could wipe out California's $21-billion wildfire fund, documents show
Damage claims from the Eaton wildfire in Altadena could wipe out the $21-billion fund California created to shield utilities and their customers from the cost of wildfires sparked by electric lines, according to newly released state documents. Investigators are seeking to determine whether Southern California Edison's equipment sparked the Jan. 7 inferno, which killed 19 people and destroyed 9,000 homes. If Edison is found responsible, 'the resulting claims may be substantial enough to fully exhaust the Fund,' state officials who administer the wildfire fund wrote in a draft annual report to the Legislature. The seven-member state Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the fund, is scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss how potential damage claims from the Eaton fire could affect it. Concerns are already emerging that, should Edison be found liable, it would have little incentive to keep damage claims from becoming excessive since the utility itself would be spared from covering most of the costs. 'Are we impressing on the utilities that they need to settle claims with diligence?' wrote one of the council members, according to meeting materials released ahead of Thursday's meeting. 'Since the claims they settle are just passed on to us, they don't have much incentive to keep claims low.' Asked for comment on that statement, Edison spokeswoman Kathleen Dunleavy said that officials 'need to be wise and cautious about how this money is spent.' 'We agree that the wildfire fund should go to those directly affected by wildfires,' she said. The council member who raised the concern wasn't identified by name. Wade Crowfoot, California's secretary of Natural Resources, holds one of the nine council seats. His spokesman, Tony Andersen, said Crowfoot is 'engaged very closely' on the wildfire fund issue, but had no additional comment at this time. Other council members include Gov. Gavin Newsom, other state leaders and their appointees. According to the state documents, the insured property losses alone could amount to as much as $15.2 billion, according to materials released ahead of a Thursday meeting. That amount does not include uninsured losses or damages beyond those to property, such as wrongful-death claims. An earlier study by UCLA estimated losses from the fire at $24 billion to $45 billion. Newsom and legislative leaders are now talking about how to shore up the fund. The Times reported last month that one option under discussion behind closed doors is to have electricity customers pay billions of dollars more into the fund. Newsom and lawmakers created the wildfire fund in 2019, saying it was needed to protect the state's three biggest for-profit utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment sparked a catastrophic fire. Newsom said at the time that the legislation, known as Assembly Bill 1054, would 'move our state toward a safer, affordable and reliable energy future.' Six years later, however, utilities' electricity lines continue to be a top cause of wildfires in California. And in 2024, the state had the second highest electric rates in the country after Hawaii. Edison said in April that a leading theory of the cause of the Eaton fire is that one of its decades-old transmission lines, last used in 1971, somehow became reenergized and sparked the fire. The investigation into the cause of the fire is continuing. Already lawyers have filed dozens of lawsuits against Edison on behalf of families who lost their homes, nearby residents who say they were harmed by toxins in the smoke and governments that lost buildings and equipment. Under the 2019 law, Edison would be allowed to settle those lawsuits. Then the state fund would reimburse the company for all or most of those costs. The Palisades fire, which also ignited Jan. 7, isn't covered by the wildfire fund because Pacific Palisades is served by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a municipal utility. Newsom's staff didn't respond to questions about how the fund's life could be extended and whether he believed AB 1054 should be amended so that excessive settlements or attorney fees aren't allowed to deplete the fund. One idea being debated is to have the 30 million Californians served by Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric pay billions of dollars more into the fund. That plan could involve extending a monthly surcharge of about $3 on electricity bills beyond its planned expiration in 2035. Officials at the California Earthquake Authority, which serves as administrator of the wildfire fund, say they are also worried that attorney fees could eat up a large portion of the money. Attorneys can receive 30% to 40% of the victim settlements, according to a 2024 study. An additional 10% to 15% can go to lawyers defending the utility from fire claims, the study said. That means as much as 50% of settlement amounts could go to legal fees, the paper said. The consolidated lawsuit against Edison in Los Angeles County Superior Court lists more than 50 law firms involved in the litigation. Officials at the Earthquake Authority say the Legislature may have to change the 2019 law to limit attorney fees or give priority to some settlements over others. For example, Wall Street hedge funds have been offering to buy claims that insurance companies have against Edison. The funds are gambling that they can get more from the state's wildfire fund in the future than they are paying insurers for the claims now. Council members discussed in May whether AB 1054 should be amended so that claims from Californians who lost their homes be given precedence over those owned by Wall Street investors trying to profit from the fire.
Boston Globe
15 hours ago
- Boston Globe
This pay dispute is turning into a public safety crisis
Advertisement Indeed, what started as a pay dispute is now a real threat to public safety. People accused of crimes are entitled to a lawyer under the US Constitution. Most can't afford one, so the state provides them. Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that often contracts that work out to a bar advocate — a private attorney hired by the state to represent indigent defendants. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But their pay is so low — $65 an hour, far lower than in neighboring states — that a large group of bar advocates have stopped taking new cases. If the state's rate were actually competitive, you might expect to see other lawyers hungry for work rushing to fill the void. Notably, they're not. Advertisement Now judges have no choice but to free some defendants. Earlier this month, a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court Legislative leaders have complained that the bar advocates didn't give them proper warning, and that they don't like being pressured by the work stoppage. Representative Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, But legislative pique is not a good enough reason to let this dangerous situation drag on. And anyway, lawmakers knew or should have known that pay was a serious and legitimate issue for those court-appointed lawyers — and that the consequences for ignoring it could be grave. At a hearing last March before the House and Senate Ways and Means Committee, Anthony J. Benedetti, chief counsel for the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) — which administers the appointment of attorneys — made the case for modest increases in their hourly wage. Advertisement And bar advocates said as early as That should have been more than enough time to reach a deal. While the $35 per hour increase that bar advocates are said to be seeking may be too high, there should have been — should still be — some way to reach a compromise. After all, that's what lawyers do all the time. (Lawmakers have said meeting the demand would cost about State Senator Lydia Edwards (D-Boston), who cochairs the Judiciary Committee, told the editorial board that bar advocates should go back to work with a commitment from the Legislature to work on an increase on their wages. 'Call it a win. Be better organized now. Set out a realistic increase that this Legislature can meet now,' she said. But that would require bar advocates to give up leverage in the hope that lawmakers are acting in good faith — a tough sell, given the lack of respect shown for earlier pay raise requests. Meanwhile, from the office of Governor Maura Healey comes this statement: 'Bar advocates do incredibly important work to make sure that everyone has their due process rights protected, and they deserve to be paid a fair wage. Governor Healey is concerned about the negative public safety impacts of this work stoppage. She urges all those impacted to work together to reach a resolution and ensure that all defendants receive the representation to which they are entitled.' Advertisement The governor has also said she'll do 'everything' she can to end the impasse. But there still appears to be no end in sight, and it's only a matter of time before the dispute leads to consequences much more dire than a broken cannon. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Kotek calls for special legislative session amid ODOT layoffs, transportation crisis
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – Nearly one month after Oregon's legislative session ended, Gov. Tina Kotek is calling on lawmakers to reconvene in Salem amid a shortfall in transportation funding, leading to historic layoffs in the state. On Tuesday, the governor called for a special session on Aug. 29, asking lawmakers to restore funds for basic road maintenance operations at the Oregon Department of Transportation along with other funding needs for local governments and transit districts. The call from the governor comes after Oregon's legislative session ended with the death of House Bill 3402 on the House floor, which aimed to bridge ODOT's $350 million funding shortfall and aimed to avert layoffs at the agency. CNBC ranks Oregon among most expensive states. Here's why 'In the weeks since the adjournment of the legislative session, my team and I have worked every day with legislators, local partners, and key stakeholders to zero in on a solution and a timeline for the legislature to come back together and address the state's most immediate transportation needs. Oregonians rely on these basic services, from brush clearing to prevent wildfires to snow plowing in winter weather, and they are counting on their elected representatives to deliver adequate and stable funding,' Kotek said in a statement on Tuesday. 'At the same time, ODOT acted prudently in the absence of this funding, initiating a first wave of layoffs on July 7 while also working to reduce the impact to basic services as much as possible. Subsequently, with the agreement of legislative leadership and with a plan for a special session now in place, I have directed ODOT to postpone the start date of layoffs for an additional 45 days, allowing impacted staff more time to make contingency plans for their livelihoods and their families,' the governor added. Kotek concluded 'I am confident that lawmakers will step up next month to avert these layoffs by approving the necessary funding for the state's transportation needs. I appreciate their partnership and am eager to be on the other side of this crisis.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now The governor is aiming to bring more funding to the state highway trust fund for the 2025-27 biennium along with funds for the Statewide Transportation Fund. Kotek argues that funding ODOT will stop pending layoffs while also allowing the agency to maintain operations at facilities scheduled for closure. 'The special session will be focused on critical near-term solutions to stabilize basic functions at ODOT and local governments,' Kotek continued. 'This is just the first step of many that must be taken to meet our state's long-term transportation needs.' Portland-area residents flock from Washington, California ODOT has laid off over 480 employees out of an estimated 600-700 total layoffs, according to the governor's office, previously stating this marks the largest government layoffs in state history. Without action from state lawmakers – and depending on unpredictable winter weather – a second round of layoffs is expected in early 2026, the governor's office said. In response to the governor convening a special session, House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) said, 'This could have been prevented if Democrats had come to the table and considered House Republicans' alternative plan to fund ODOT by refocusing existing revenue instead of adding billions of dollars in new taxes on struggling Oregonians.' VIDEO: ClackCo deputies punched mentally disabled inmate 7 times, lawsuit claims The Republican leader added, 'This could still be prevented today, without a special session, if Democrats made the decision to use existing revenue from the emergency board. We can still protect these jobs without raising taxes — and we should. Republicans have represented the voices of the people and fought hard to find solutions that don't add new taxes. It's now time for Democrats to do the same. We invite Democrats to join us in funding essential services without raising taxes, to stand with Oregonians who cannot afford to shoulder more costs.' Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles) furthered, ' 'Just weeks after the Legislature rejected the largest tax increase in Oregon history, the Governor is calling us back to Salem to try again, this time with less notice and less transparency. Republicans offered a common-sense plan to get ODOT focused back on its core mission, protect critical maintenance jobs, restore accountability, and avoid raising costs on hardworking Oregonians. Democrats didn't even give it a glance.' 3 Portland spots included in Yelp Elite's roundup of the nation's best fried chicken Bonham added, 'If Governor Kotek were serious about fixing our transportation system, she would start by repealing her executive order on project labor agreements. That one decision alone adds 20 to 30 percent to the cost of every project. Her concern over budget shortfalls rings completely hollow when she's knowingly forcing taxpayers to overpay by millions. Instead, she's playing politics with frontline workers to pressure lawmakers into voting for higher taxes.' The Senate Republican leader concluded, 'For decades, Governor Kotek and her party have prioritized spending on programs that line the pockets of special interests, such as costly housing initiatives that haven't delivered real results, while neglecting critical infrastructure needs. This mismanagement has directly contributed to the crisis we face today. Oregonians deserve roads that work, bridges that last, and a government that puts them first, not more status quo policies and backroom deals to reward special interests.' While discussing an amendment for HB 3402 — which included a bump to registration and titling fees with a 3-cent increase to the gas tax, allowing that money to go to ODOT — House Republicans argued that working Oregonians don't want more taxes. Meanwhile, Kotek said during the amendment's public hearing that not passing it would be catastrophic for Oregonians, noting possible ODOT job cuts could include roles for incident response teams and maintenance crews, which would be 'unacceptable' for Oregonians. House Minority Leader Drazan echoed the sentiments of her Republican colleagues, previously stating, 'It's really, really simple for us. Oregonians themselves have said our number one issue is affordability, and this is tone-deaf. It flies in the face of what Oregonians are telling us as policymakers that they need right now.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
