Skip to main content

How Much Attorney Time Is Sufficient for Effective Representation of Criminal Defendants?

By
Pursuant to legislation passed during the 83rd Texas Legislative Session, the Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) was instructed to “conduct and publish a study for the purpose of determining guidelines for establishing a maximum allowable caseload for a criminal defense attorney that…allows the attorney to give each indigent defendant the time and effort necessary to ensure effective representation.” The TIDC conducted a weighted caseload study that sought to answer two key questions:
     1.  How much time "is" currently being spent on the defense of court-appointed criminal cases?
     2. How much time "should" be spent to achieve reasonably effective representation?

The caseload study resulted in a lengthy report, recently made available here.

Three types of studies were used in order to answer these questions. First, a Timekeeping Study tracked the time spent on criminal cases by 196 private and public defense attorneys over a period of twelve weeks. Results were separated by seriousness of charges, with Class B and Class A misdemeanors disposed of in 4.7 and 7.6 hours, respectively. The range continues to the highest-level first degree felonies, with average attorney time of 22.3.

Next, a Time Sufficiency Study was conducted via survey of a private and public criminal defense practitioners, asking participants to review the amount of time spent on criminal cases (according to the Timekeeping Study). Respondents viewed the results of how much time attorneys were spending in these case, and making recommendations as to how much time “should” be spent in order to ensure effective representation.

Finally, a panel of 18 criminal defense practitioners were selected to take part in a Delphi process, integrating the opinions of the highly-experienced professionals into the final caseload guidelines. 

The guidelines suggest the maximum caseload an attorney can take on while still delivering competent and effective representation. The study recommends attorneys take on no more than the full-time equivalent caseload of:
  • 236 Class B Misdemeanors
  • 216 Class A Misdemeanors
  • 174 State Jail Felonies
  • 144 Third Degree Felonies
  • 105 Second Degree felonies
  • 77 First Degree Felonies
The TIDC, in creating this tool, aims to define the point at which caseloads become excessive and prevent the effective representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. It is hoped that this study will be used by appointing authorities and attorneys both, strengthening the effectiveness of representation, and preventing reversal of criminal convictions based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le
1 comment
Read more

C-SPAN Video Archive Now Online

By
Legislative researchers and politics fans take note. C-SPAN recently completed a digitization project placing the entirety of its video collection online. The archives record all three C-SPAN networks seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. The videos are available at no cost for historical, educational, research, and archival uses. The database includes over 160,000 hours of video recorded since 1987 and the programs are indexed by subject, speaker names, titles, affiliations, sponsors, committees, categories, formats, policy groups, keywords, and locations. The most recent, most watched, and most shared videos are highlighted on the main page. To start watching, visit the C-SPAN Video Library and use the search function at the top of the page.
Post a Comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requires
Post a Comment
Read more