Case: State v. Covington

In this case, a Louisiana appellate court held that courts could not lawfully assign lawyers (in particular, public defenders) a larger caseload than they could competently handle. The Public Defender's evidence in this case established that the Louisiana public defense system currently has the capacity to handle only 21 percent of its workload with reasonable competence and effectiveness. See State v. Spears, No. 2019 KW 1494, 2020 WL 1230134 (La. Court of Appeal, First Circuit, March 13, 2020). This is the first appellate court in the nation to order specific public defender caseload relief based on reliable data and analytics contained in a statewide public defender workload study.

The case began when a Louisiana trial court appointed the public defender to be counsel in several cases (with docket numbers 10-18-0529, 07-18-0409, and 07-18-0233). At some point, the public defender moved to withdraw as counsel, and also requested to withdraw from future representation of indigent defendants facing all but the most serious charges, until its caseloads were reduced to a reasonable level that allowed effective representation of all represented defendants. The trial court rejected the request; the public defender appealed, arguing that it violated the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective counsel to provide an overworked public defender.

On March 13, 2020, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal held that Chief East Baton Rouge Public Defender Michael Mitchell had presented sufficient evidence to the trial court to demonstrate that his appointed public defenders could not effectively represent their indigent clients due to their excessive caseloads. The appellate court held that there was a conflict of interest when a public defender was compelled by excessive caseload to choose among the rights of the various indigent defendants he or she is representing, citing Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (LRPC), Rule 1.7. That rule is identical to American Bar Association Model Rule 1.7, which is in force in most jurisdictions nationwide. The rule requires lawyers to seek to withdraw from existing representations and decline future representations when they have a conflict.

To implement this decision, the appellate court directed the trial court to triage the cases on its docket so that those alleging the most serious offenses, and those in which defendants were unable to seek or obtain bail, are given priority even if it means that other cases are continued or delayed as a result of the state’s failure to appoint counsel who can their ethical obligations. And the appellate court directed the trial court to allow public defenders to withdraw from future representation of indigent defendants not charged with the most serious crimes until their caseloads are no greater than 100% of their annual capacity, as determined by a workload study introduced in evidence in this case.

The state filed a notice of intent to seek rehearing and an emergency motion to stay this ruling pending the outcome of its rehearing application. In the motion for rehearing, the state wrote that the ruling:

"carries extremely significant ramifications. While the motion was originally filed in Section VI of the 19th JDC, the logic of Spears would apply equally to all trial courts within the First Circuit’s jurisdiction. . . . Spears for certain will impact thousands of indigent defendants located within the jurisdiction and the many unqualified private civil attorneys that will now be called upon to do pro bono criminal work. Spears could impact all trial courts, public defenders, and prosecutors in the State of Louisiana. It is one of the rare decisions in criminal law that affects more than just a specific defendant. It affects our society.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the state’s motion for a stay of the ruling until April 13, 2020. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, however, the Governor issued an order closing Louisiana courts until that date.

On July 2, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari. In December, it reversed the appellate court's order. The Supreme Court reasoned that the evidence was insufficient to support the chief indigent defender's claim that appointed public defenders could not effectively represent their indigent clients. The Court said that the public defenders had only established a risk of ineffective assistance of counsel. In dissent, Chief Justice Bernette Johnson argued that there was “no equal justice under law” in Louisiana’s criminal justice system and that Louisiana was proceeding “in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution.”

This case is closed.