Case: Robbins v. Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services

This class-action lawsuit challenged Maine’s system of appointing private attorneys to provide representation to indigent criminal defendants. On March 1, 2022, five people currently being represented in criminal proceedings by appointed counsel filed a complaint and motion for class certification in Maine’s Kennebec County Superior Court. The plaintiffs sued the executive director of the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services in his official capacity, the chair of the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services in his official capacity, and the commissioners of the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maine law. Represented by the ACLU of Maine, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to costs and attorneys’ fees. 

The plaintiffs claimed that the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services (MCILS) failed to promulgate rules to administer and fund the indigent defense system and develop standards, minimum qualifications, specialized training, and performance evaluation to the attorneys providing indigent defense services. The plaintiffs alleged the system violated indigent defendants’ right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I § 6 of the Maine Constitution, the state counterpart to the Sixth Amendment. The plaintiffs also challenged the MCILS’s “lawyer of the day” program, which appointed a few attorneys each day to be available for any defendant scheduled for an initial appearance. The plaintiffs alleged the program created an unconstitutional risk of ineffective assistance of counsel, because there were not enough attorneys available to enter initial pleas, advocate for pre-trial release, or negotiate bond.

The plaintiffs defined the putative class as “[a]ll individuals who currently are or in the future will be eligible for the appointment of competent defense counsel by the Superior or District Court pursuant to 15 M.R.S. §810 because they have been indicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Prison and they lack sufficient means to employ counsel.”

The case is ongoing as of April 12, 2022.