Lacey City Council adheres to court mandate on indigent defense loads 

The Lacey City Council voted to overhaul public defender caseload limits in response to a Washington State Supreme Court mandate that slashes maximum annual assignments to 120 cases per attorney from  400 per attorney by 2036. 

Ordinance 1689, related to standards for indigent defense, passed on a 6-1 vote at a city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 16. Council member Michael Steadman cast the dissenting vote in what he called a protest against yet another “unmanned" and “unfunded” state mandate. 

The measure amends Lacey Municipal Code (LMC) 9.60.010 to adopt the caseload standards in Supreme Court interim order No. 25700-A-1644, issued on June 9. A clarifying order, No. 25700-A-167, followed on Nov. 6. 

Lacey public defenders currently handle close to 400 misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases per attorney annually, according to Assistant City Manager Shannon Kelley-Fong. 

The new mandate requires jurisdictions to cut that load by 28 cases per year, reaching 372 in 2026, 344 in 2027, then 316 in 2028, and continuing downward through 2035-36 when full compliance calls for 120 cases per attorney. The 10-year drawdown amounts to a 70% reduction in caseloads. 

Fiscall fallout 

The fiscal burden looms large for the City of Lacey.

Deputy Mayor Malcolm Miller pressed staff on whether the state has offered financial relief. 

"We know that there's going to be at least another $100,000 a year that we're going to be responsible for, which is going to compound creating a budget situation for us in future years, up to about a million dollars extra per year that we're gonna have to be responsible for," Miller said. "But (what) I haven't heard is, has the state talked about any way to address that?" 

In response, Kelley-Fong told council that staff plans to pursue state grants. She also noted House Bill 2015 created a new state sales tax option jurisdictions can tap for public safety purposes, including public defense and court services. That grant funding, however, has a three-year limit. 

City Manager Rick Walk added the 2026 budget accounts for first-year implementation costs. Still, long-term funding remains a question for future planning or state legislative intervention, he said. 

Lacey has listed public defense funding as a priority in its 2026 state legislative agenda, joining the Association of Washington Cities and Association of Washington Counties in lobbying for support. 

Council divided 

Council members split on whether the new requirements make sense. 

Council member Robin Vazquez compared the old caseload standard to an elementary teacher handling 50 students instead of a reasonable class size. 

"This is a problem we've been aware of since 2012," Vazquez said.

She noted the Supreme Court flagged the issue then, but only now has given the requirement teeth.

"It is a complicated issue. I think this is still a move in the right direction," Vazquez said. "We need to figure out how to fund it. We need to make sure the workforce exists. But this is the right thing to do for people who need indigent defense in our community." 

Steadman, however, contested the math. He calculated that 400 cases spread across roughly 250 working days equals 1.6 cases daily per attorney. Dropping to 120 cases, by contrast, means about one-half a case per day. 

"It doesn't seem, I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like a half a case a day does not seem like, I mean, maybe it is a lot," Steadman said.

"But another unmanned mandate, unfunded mandate by the state, and no way to pay for it. It just seems like it keeps happening every year. The state asks more and more from local government, and with no tools in the toolbox to help it financially." 

He explained his "no" vote as a protest against the mandate itself. 

Mayor Andy Ryder raised an even starker concern.

"If this was fully implemented, there are not enough attorneys in the state of Washington to cover these caseloads," Ryder said.

"They just don't exist. It's not we're just one city. You have to think about this as a standard for every city and county across the state of Washington." 

Without state intervention, Ryder pointed toward possible outcomes. 

"It's either going to bankrupt cities, or there's going to have to be a massive additional help from the state, or we're just not going to prosecute people," Ryder said.

"And I don't think that we want our streets to be less safe and not hold people accountable because of a state law that's not allowing that to happen." 

Evergreen clause 

To avoid returning to council each time the Supreme Court tweaks its standards, staff built an "evergreen" clause into Ordinance 1689. 

The measure adopts Supreme Court order No. 25700-A-1644 by reference, meaning future amendments to court rules automatically flow into local code without requiring additional council action. 

The flexibility matters because the state high court has not yet rendered a full decision on all revised Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) standards for indigent defense, staff said. When that ruling arrives, council may still need to revisit local code. 

The legal backdrop stretches back more than a decade. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 10.101.030 requires cities to adopt indigent defense standards and points to WSBA guidelines. 

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, holds authority to set and amend court rules governing public defense under Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CrRLJ) 3.1. 

Lacey first codified indigent defense standards in 2014 under Ordinance 1444, matching court order 25700-A-1004 from 2012. That order capped caseloads at 400 per attorney annually, a threshold that stood until this year's interim order rewrote the math. 

The push for change accelerated in 2023 when the Supreme Court asked the WSBA Council on Public Defense to review a new national workload study. The bar association Board of Governors adopted revised standards in 2024 and recommended the court incorporate them into court rules. 

Council member Nicolas Dunning said the issue will likely return in coming years. 

"This is something that we're going to be discussing probably every single year and trying to do that, and we're just going to have to see whatever the consequences of good or bad are as they come," Dunning said.

"And maybe it's going to be a great thing. And, you know, I hope it is, and they can get the amount of lawyers, and people can get the right defense."