## Meeting Overview On a Tuesday morning in mid-June, the Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened for what was scheduled as a brief 15-minute update but stretched to nearly 25 minutes as members grappled with significant news that had just broken the previous day. Committee Chair Barry Buchanan called the hybrid meeting to order at 11:45 AM, with committee members Tyler Byrd and Jon Scanlon present, along with several other council members joining remotely. The sole agenda item was a report from Public Defender Stark Follis about his office's operations and, more importantly, new caseload standards that the Washington State Supreme Court had adopted just one day earlier. These standards represent a fundamental shift in how public defense services must be delivered across the state, with far-reaching implications for county budgets, staffing, and the criminal justice system itself. What emerged was a story of cautious relief mixed with long-term uncertainty about how Whatcom County will navigate the evolving landscape of indigent defense. ## The Supreme Court's Reprieve: New Caseload Standards Bring Mixed News The centerpiece of Follis's presentation was the breaking news about caseload standards that had been years in the making. The journey began with a nationwide caseload study by the RAND Corporation two years prior, which prompted Washington's Supreme Court to ask the Council on Public Defense—a subdivision of the state bar association—to develop new recommendations. After extensive study, the Council proposed dramatically reduced caseloads: 47 felony cases and 120 misdemeanor cases per attorney annually, with implementation planned over three years starting in July 2025 and full compliance required by July 2027. "We looked at that number, and we looked at the number of FTEs that we had, and we all recognize that there is was likely no way that we were going to be able to comply with those numbers without substantial help from the legislature and without, you know, sort of the miraculous showing up of more people that are willing to do this work," Follis explained to the committee. However, the Supreme Court's order issued on Monday brought unexpected modifications. While the court adopted the same final caseload numbers, it accelerated the start date to January 1, 2026, but then provided what Follis characterized as a significant reprieve. Rather than requiring immediate compliance, the court established these numbers as "aspirational" and mandated only 10% annual progress toward the standards, allowing counties until January 2036 to achieve full compliance. "This is sort of a mixed bag," Follis noted, describing the reaction from the Washington Association of Counties (WASAC) as disappointment. The organization had hoped for more time or different numbers entirely. But for Whatcom County specifically, Follis expressed cautious optimism: "What the court did, assuming they stick to the schedule that they've set... is they've given us a reprieve because we can do that 10% thing." ## The Math of Criminal Defense: Understanding Caseload Calculations The discussion revealed the complex mechanics of how caseload standards actually work, dispelling some common misconceptions. When Council Member Ben Elenbaas asked whether courts and prosecutors could help meet standards by resolving cases more efficiently, Follis provided a crucial clarification that illuminated the fundamental nature of the challenge. "Resolving cases more efficiently or quickly has virtually nothing whatever to do with the caseload standards issue that we have," Follis explained. "The caseload standards are the number of cases I can assign a given lawyer in a rolling 12 month period. So I can give my lawyers about 12 cases a month, and what they do with those cases doesn't impact their caseload... It impacts their workload, but it doesn't impact my compliance or non compliance with the standards. That's measured only by assignment." This distinction proved critical to understanding why efficiency improvements, while valuable, cannot solve the standards problem. Even if a case resolves in one week, it still counts as a full case assignment for the rolling 12-month period. "The only thing that is going to prevent an increase of lawyers with the implementation of the standards is a reduction of the crime rate or an increase in the use of diversion or other alternative things that keep these people out of the criminal justice system," Follis emphasized. The current reality is stark: Whatcom County's 27 attorneys are running at about 130 cases annually under their existing case weighting policy, compared to the 150 cases current standards allow. The policy reduces attorney caseloads to account for time spent on recurring calendars like arraignments and probation dockets—work that doesn't generate case credits but consumes significant time. ## Staffing Struggles in a Challenging Field Beyond the standards discussion, Follis painted a sobering picture of the staffing challenges facing public defense. His office, which hasn't grown effectively in about a year and a half, currently employs 27 lawyers, seven full-time investigators, three behavioral health specialists, and approximately 10 legal assistants—about 50 FTEs total. Despite being down two attorney positions after departures in April, the office is still handling its caseload without overflowing cases to assigned counsel for the first time in over a year. "We've had a very difficult time filling those positions. We've gone through two rounds of interviews. I've extended, I believe, two offers, both of which were declined," Follis reported. The recruitment challenges reflect broader trends in public defense work. "There continues to be a real shortage of lawyers that are either interested or available to do public defense... It's not an easy place to work. It's a highly stressful and highly demanding place for people to work." The human cost of this environment was evident in Follis's description of burnout: "Unfortunately, there is some burnout associated with that. And, you know, few and far between are the old guard like me who make a career of this and retire. There are a few but, but not too many. Most people move on to something else after some period of time." This challenge was starkly illustrated when Follis described a crisis that had occurred just the day before the meeting: "There's a lawyer that was doing conflict cases for the county that is leaving the practice of law, and literally dumped nearly 50 felony files on [Conflict Public Defender] Railing King's desk. And I'm having to try to deal with those right now. And that's a tremendous number of cases to try and deal with." ## Budget Relief and Mid-Biennium Concerns The meeting addressed budget pressures that had been weighing on the Public Defender's Office. During the mid-biennium review process, departments had been asked to model potential reductions, including the possibility that offices would need to absorb cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) from their existing budgets—a roughly $170,000 hit for the Public Defender's Office. However, relief came from an unexpected source: increased state funding through RCW 10.101 pass-through funds administered by the Office of Public Defense (OPD). "One good thing that came out of the legislature this year was a slight increase in the RCW 10.101 pass through funds," Follis reported. The office's state funding will jump from approximately $200,000 annually to about $442,000—an additional $240,000 that should cover the budget shortfalls. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci clarified the budget exercise for the committee: "Departments were not asked to make cuts. They were asked to model reduction scenarios so that... some departments are going to need to see an increase in their budget. Others will need to see a decrease... We want to have all options for the executive, all options for the council to consider." The state funding increase, while welcome, remains modest in context. As Follis noted, "The state was paying about 2.8% of my budget historically, and this extra money they're giving us will take that to about 6%, so it's not very much money... Maybe it's enough for one lawyer, if I was to use it just for that." ## Space Constraints and Confidentiality Challenges Beyond staffing and budget issues, the office faces physical infrastructure challenges that could become critical if expansion becomes necessary. Follis described working conditions that fall short of professional standards: "We have a lawyer and two behavioral health specialists that essentially work in a closet that were one was an office supply room, the other was truly a closet. I mean, it literally is this wide, and, you know, six feet long." More problematic are confidentiality concerns stemming from the building's history. When the county initially housed the public defender's office in the current building as rental space, cubicles were installed rather than floor-to-ceiling offices. When the county purchased the building, the cubicles were never replaced. "That's problematic when lawyers are trying to have confidential conversations with somebody in their space, which are required by the standards, by the way, to have a place to have a confidential communication," Follis explained. The configuration creates situations where "people coming into the building can hear what's being said" in attorney-client conversations—a clear violation of professional standards. While the office has workarounds, including encouraging attorneys to use vacant offices and a conference room, "sometimes you just have to have a conversation, whether it's on the phone or with a client in your office that can be heard outside of the cubicle." ## Looking Ahead: A Decade of Gradual Change The Supreme Court's decision creates both opportunities and uncertainties for Whatcom County. The 10% annual reduction requirement applies to every attorney in the office, meaning that if current standards allow 150 felony case assignments annually, next year that number drops to 135, then to 121 the following year, and so on until reaching the target of 47 cases in 2036. "Jurisdictions are free to comply with those numbers now if they want to. And I think that that's what King County is trying to do," Follis noted, highlighting how different counties may approach the transition. Larger jurisdictions that had pushed for immediate implementation of the standards may be disappointed by the extended timeline, while smaller counties like Whatcom may find the gradual approach more manageable. The long-term fiscal impact remains unclear. Follis suggested that legislative sessions over the coming decade may need to address funding gaps as caseloads continue to decrease. "I think what the court perhaps did with this 10 year plan is to encourage each legislative session to look at what they need to do to pick up the slack as the numbers start to come down. And whether the legislature has the inclination to do that or not, is anybody's guess." The recent legislative session provided little guidance for the future. "There was a lot of numbers flying around in Olympia this year relative to indigent defense... At the 11th Hour, when the governor indicated to the legislature it wasn't, he wasn't going to sign the budget as it was originally proposed, it went back and the number was slashed." ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting concluded with acknowledgment that the Supreme Court's order, while providing near-term relief, leaves fundamental questions unanswered about long-term sustainability of public defense services. The reprieve gives Whatcom County breathing room to adapt gradually, but the underlying challenges of recruiting qualified attorneys, maintaining adequate funding, and providing appropriate working conditions remain. As Committee Chair Buchanan noted when extending the meeting beyond its scheduled 15 minutes, "I think this is an important conversation." The committee members' questions revealed genuine engagement with the complexities of ensuring constitutional right to counsel while managing taxpayer resources responsibly. The immediate path forward appears manageable—Follis believes the office can likely comply with 2026 requirements without adding staff—but the decade ahead will test the county's commitment to public defense and the state's willingness to provide meaningful financial support. With the Supreme Court having reserved the right to revisit and modify the standards, the only certainty is continued uncertainty in this evolving area of criminal justice policy.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee met on June 10, 2025, to receive a report from Public Defender Stark Follis about new caseload standards adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court. The meeting focused on how these standards will impact the Public Defender's Office staffing and budget over the next decade. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Caseload Standards:** Limits on how many cases a public defender can be assigned in a 12-month rolling period, not how many cases they can have pending at one time. **Public Defender's Office:** County department that provides legal representation to people who cannot afford private attorneys in criminal cases. **Conflict Office:** Separate legal office that handles cases where the main Public Defender's Office has a conflict of interest. **RCW 10.101 Pass-Through Funds:** State funding that flows through the Office of Public Defense (OPD) to help counties pay for indigent defense services. **Case Weighting Policy:** A system that adjusts attorney caseloads based on time spent on recurring court calendars like arraignments and probation hearings. **Supreme Court Rule:** Court-mandated requirements that counties must follow, unlike advisory bar association standards. **Diversion Programs:** Alternatives to prosecution that keep people out of the criminal justice system entirely. **Mid-Biennium Review:** Mid-cycle budget process where departments model potential spending reductions or increases. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Barry Buchanan | Committee Chair | | Tyler Byrd | Committee Member | | Jon Scanlon | Committee Member | | Stark Follis | Public Defender | | Aly Pennucci | Deputy Executive | | Todd Donovan | Council Member (attending) | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member (attending) | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member (attending) | | Mark Stremler | Council Member (attending) | ### Background Context For years, public defender offices nationwide have struggled with overwhelming caseloads that compromise effective representation. A 2023 RAND Corporation study led to new national standards, which Washington State's Council on Public Defense adopted in March 2024. The Washington State Bar Association followed suit, but these were advisory only. The key question was whether the State Supreme Court would make compliance mandatory through court rules. On June 9, 2025—the day before this meeting—the Supreme Court issued its ruling, requiring compliance with caseload limits but giving counties a 10-year phase-in period rather than immediate implementation. This represents a significant compromise between public defender advocates wanting immediate reform and counties concerned about costs and attorney shortages. ### What Happened — The Short Version Public Defender Stark Follis briefed the committee on the Supreme Court's decision, explaining it as a "mixed bag" that provides relief from immediate compliance while still requiring gradual progress. Instead of dropping to 47 felony cases per attorney by July 2025 (as originally proposed), counties now have until 2036 to reach full compliance, reducing caseloads by 10% annually starting in 2026. Follis explained that Whatcom County can likely meet the first year's requirements without adding staff, partly by eliminating their current case weighting policy and using increased state funding (jumping from $200,000 to $442,000 annually). However, future years will be more challenging. Committee members asked about operational efficiency, budget impacts, and whether departments could work together better to reduce caseloads. Follis clarified that faster case resolution doesn't help with caseload standards, which are measured by new case assignments, not pending cases. ### What to Watch Next - January 1, 2026: First 10% caseload reduction takes effect - Annual budget cycles: Monitoring whether state funding increases to help counties comply - Supreme Court review: The Court indicated it may issue additional orders modifying the standards - Legislative sessions: Potential for increased state funding as compliance deadlines approach ---

**Q:** What are the new felony caseload limits that will eventually apply to public defenders? **A:** 47 felony cases per attorney per year (down from current 150), to be implemented by January 2036. **Q:** When do the new caseload standards start taking effect? **A:** January 1, 2026, with 10% annual reductions toward full compliance by 2036. **Q:** Who is Stark Follis? **A:** Whatcom County's Public Defender who oversees an office of about 50 full-time employees. **Q:** How many attorneys work in the Public Defender's Office? **A:** Currently 27 attorneys, though they're down 2 positions due to departures in April 2025. **Q:** What is the difference between caseload standards and pending caseload? **A:** Caseload standards limit new case assignments per year; pending caseload is how many cases an attorney has open at any time. **Q:** How much state funding does Whatcom County receive for public defense? **A:** Previously about $200,000 annually, increasing to $442,000 in 2025 through RCW 10.101 pass-through funds. **Q:** What percentage of the Public Defender's budget does state funding cover? **A:** Previously 2.8%, increasing to about 6% with the new funding level. **Q:** Can counties avoid the new standards by resolving cases faster? **A:** No—standards are based on new case assignments, not how quickly cases are resolved. **Q:** What major challenge happened to the Public Defender's Office recently? **A:** A conflict attorney left practice and dumped nearly 50 felony cases on the office in one day. **Q:** What office space problems does the Public Defender's Office face? **A:** Attorneys work in cubicles instead of private offices, making confidential client conversations difficult. **Q:** What happened to unrepresented defendants in county jail? **A:** The situation has improved significantly over the past few years, with very few unrepresented people now. **Q:** Who issued the final caseload standards ruling? **A:** The Washington State Supreme Court, making compliance mandatory rather than advisory. **Q:** What entity originally recommended the caseload standards? **A:** The Council on Public Defense, a subdivision of the Washington State Bar Association. **Q:** What was the RAND Corporation's role in this process? **A:** They conducted a nationwide caseload study about two years ago that initiated the standards development. **Q:** How did Follis describe the Supreme Court's decision? **A:** A "mixed bag" that provides relief through the 10-year phase-in while still requiring eventual compliance. **Q:** What alternatives could reduce the need for more public defenders? **A:** Diversion programs and other alternatives that keep people out of the criminal justice system entirely. **Q:** What was the original timeline for implementing the standards? **A:** July 1, 2025, for partial implementation, with full compliance by July 2027. **Q:** How does the current situation affect hiring? **A:** It's extremely difficult to fill attorney positions, with two recent job offers being declined. **Q:** What major space constraint affects the Public Defender's Office? **A:** Some staff work in converted closets and supply rooms, and cubicles prevent confidential communications. ---