Ethics Forum: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility
I am a lawyer employed by the Public Defender's Office in one of Pennsylvania's counties. My office is extremely overworked. Many of the lawyers have left and have not been replaced. The caseload is impossible. What are my duties and responsibilities?
October 07, 2021 at 11:19 AM
14 minute read
Chester County lawyer Samuel C. Stretton. Courtesy photo The rules are very clear that a lawyer cannot handle more cases than they can do so competently.
I am a lawyer employed by the Public Defender's Office in one of Pennsylvania's counties. My office is extremely overworked. Many of the lawyers have left and have not been replaced. The caseload is impossible. What are my duties and responsibilities?
The question is an interesting and timely one. This column in the past has discussed problems with court appointed and public defenders offices and the ethics of many of the policies that have been accepted in Pennsylvania. For instance, there is no question that court-appointed counsel who just receives a flat fee for an unlimited number of cases are in a total conflict of interest with their court-appointed clients. A flat fee of $3,000 or $3,200 per month, which does not include overhead, and where there is no cap on the number of cases the lawyer handles is just absolutely unethical. It puts the lawyer in a total conflict with a client. A lawyer cannot go to trial on all of those cases. It is in the lawyer's interest to work things out, but it might not be in the client's. Public defender's offices have many of the same problems. It is just not as obvious as the flat fee conflict with sometimes 100 or more cases assigned to court-appointed counsel in the counties.
Philadelphia has a graduated fee system where the attorney gets a flat rate for preparation or trial, and flat per diem fees for days of trial. Philadelphia fees are grossly inadequate and there are usually long delays before payment. Many lawyers have continued to accept court-appointed cases because they feel obligated to do so, but it is not a good system.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
K&L Gates Sheds Space, but Will Stay in Flagship Pittsburgh Office After Lease Renewal
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
