The Louisiana Projectlpdb.la.gov/Supporting Practitioners/Standards/txtfiles... · 2017-02-17 ·...

TheLouisianaProjectAStudyoftheLouisianaPublicDefenderSystem

andAttorneyWorkloadStandards

ModeledontheNationalBlueprintforFutureWorkloadStudiesfromTheMissouriProjectwww.indigentdefense.org

TheLouisianaProjectAStudyoftheLouisianaDefenderSystem

andAttorneyWorkloadStandards

February2017

Conductedby:

and

TheAmericanBarAssociationStandingCommitteeonLegalAidandIndigentDefendants

This report has been produced by Postlethwaite & Netterville, APAC and the American Bar Association StandingCommitteeonLegalAidandIndigentDefendants.Theviewsexpressedherein,unlessotherwisenoted,havenotbeenapproved by theHouse ofDelegates or the Board of Governors of the AmericanBar Association and, accordingly,shouldnotbeconstruedasrepresentingthepolicyoftheAmericanBarAssociation.Certainconclusionsinvolvelegalconceptsandjudgments,andnolegalopinionfromPostlethwaiteandNetterville,APACisintendedorimpliedinthisreport.FundingforthisstudywasprovidedbytheLauraandJohnArnoldFoundationandtheviewsexpressedhereinarenotnecessarilythoseoftheFoundation.

February15,2017

LauraandJohnArnoldFoundationc/oDenisCalabrese,President3ColumbusCircle,Suite1601NewYork,NY10019

DearMr.Calabrese:

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants andPostlethwaite and Netterville, APAC have prepared and enclosed our analysis of attorneyworkload standards for the Louisiana public defense system. The report that follows thistransmittalletterprovidesanoverviewandresultsofthestudy.

PostlethwaiteandNetterville,APAC’sserviceswereconductedinaccordancewiththeStatementsonStandards forConsultingServices, asestablishedby theAmerican InstituteofCertifiedPublicAccountants.

Inclosing,wewouldliketothankyouforthisopportunitytobeofservicetoyou.

Sincerely,

POSTLETHWAITE&NETTERVILLE,APAC

AMERICANBARASSOCIATIONSTANDINGCOMMITTEEONLEGALAIDANDINDIGENTDEFENDANTS

LoraJ.Livingston,Chair

PREFACETheLouisianaProject isapublicdefenseworkloadstudyperformedasacollaborativeresearcheffortconductedbytheAmericanBarAssociationStandingCommitteeonLegalAidandIndigentDefendants(“ABA”)andPostlethwaiteandNetterville,APAC(“P&N”).WewouldliketothanktheLauraandJohnArnoldFoundationforfundingthisstudy,whichwascriticaltothisundertaking.TheLouisianaProjectwasconductedundertheleadershipofMr.DanielGardiner,CPA(Directorof Tax Services at P&N),Mr. JasonMacMorran, CPA/ABV/CFF, CVA,MS (Director of ConsultingServicesatP&N),andMr.StephenF.Hanlon,J.D.(ProjectLeaderfortheABA).On behalf of P&N, Mr. Gardiner and Mr. MacMorran were provided significant professionalassistancefromMr.MadisonField,CFE,CVA,MBA(ConsultingManageratP&N)andMr. JeremySanders,CSM,CSPO(ConsultingManageratP&N).Onbehalf of theABA,Mr.Hanlonwas supportedbyMr.GeoffreyBurkhart, J.D. (former SpecialProjectCoordinatorfortheABAStandingCommitteeonLegalAidandIndigentDefendants)andMr.NormanLefstein,LL.B.,LL.M.(ProfessorofLawandDeanEmeritus,IndianaUniversityRobertH.McKinneySchoolofLaw).1In addition, we would like to thank Mr. Peter Sterling, J.D. (former General Counsel for theMissouri StatePublicDefender),Mr.MichaelLewis (RubinBrown,LLP), andMr. JoshLeesmann(RubinBrown,LLP)fortheirguidanceandcontributionstothisstudy.WealsowouldliketothanktheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoard(“LPDB”)fortheircooperationthroughoutthisproject,specifically,Mr.JamesDixon,J.D.(StatePublicDefender),Ms.JeanFaria,J.D. (Capital Case Coordinator), Mr. Erik Stilling, Ph.D. (Program Development and ResourceManagementOfficer),Ms.CarolKolinchak, J.D. (TrialLevelComplianceOfficer),andMs.CristineRoussel (CMS Report Analyst). Additionally, we would like to thank the public defenders whovoluntarilytrackedtheirtimeoncriminalcasesinthe10th,19th,22nd,and41stjudicialdistricts.We would like to thank the independent panel comprised of Mr. James Boren (Baton Rouge,Louisiana), Mr. Mark Cunningham (New Orleans, Louisiana), Mr. John DiGiulio (Baton Rouge,

1TheworkoftheABAonTheLouisianaProjectwasperformedundertheauspicesoftheABAStandingCommitteeonLegalAidand IndigentDefendants (“SCLAID”). Mr.Hanlon isa formermemberofSCLAIDand formerchairof thecommittee’s Indigent Defense Advisory Group. Professor Lefstein is currently a Special Advisor to SCLAID and aformerSCLAID consultant andcommitteemember; andMr.Burkhart servedasa SCLAID staffmemberduring theproject.

Louisiana),andMr.DanielMartiny(Metairie,Louisiana)forselectingparticipants(“luminaries”)inthefieldofLouisianacriminaldefenserepresentationtoparticipateintheworkloadstudy.Finally,wewouldliketothankthesurveyparticipantscomprisedofprivatedefensepractitionersandpublicdefenders for their significant contributionsandserviceon theDelphiPanel forTheLouisianaProject.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ExecutiveSummary 1

Introduction 3

TheLouisianaProject 6

OverviewofHistoricalCaseloadsandStaffing 7

OverviewoftheLouisianaPublicDefenderTimeStudy 11

OverviewofTheDelphiMethod 14

OverviewofDelphiProcess 16

TheDelphiMethodResults 20

Appendices

DefinitionofCaseloadandWorkload A

RestrictionofServices B

PilotDistrictsandImpactsofRestrictionofServices C

DelphiMethodology D

RoundOneandTwoSamples E

LouisianaPublicDefenderWorkloadStudyCaseTypesandTasks F

DelphiPanelMembersandSurvey G

AnnualWorkloadAnalysis H

Exhibits

TheLouisianaProjectPage1

EXECUTIVESUMMARYTheABAandP&NconductedastudyonbehalfoftheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoardtoestablishpublicdefenseworkloadstandardsfortheStateofLouisiana,calledtheLouisianaProject.The Louisiana Project consisted of three main phases: (1) an analysis of the Louisiana publicdefense system’s historic caseloads and staffing; (2) an analysis of actual time spent by publicdefendersonrecentcaseloadsinpilotdistricts;and(3)theapplicationoftheDelphiMethodasasurvey process to identify howmuch time an attorney should spend, on average, in providingrepresentation in certain types of criminal cases to provide reasonably effective assistance ofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnorms.The Delphi Method’s structured and reliable technique integrates opinions of highly informedprofessionals to develop consensus opinions. The Delphi Panel, consisting of Louisiana privatedefensepractitionersandpublicdefenders,providedprofessionalconsensusopinionsregardingthe appropriate amount of time an attorney should spend on certain case types to providereasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnormsintheStateofLouisiana.TheresultsoftheDelphiPanelsurveyarepresentedbelow.

DelphiPanelSurveyResultsCaseType HoursPerCaseMisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance 7.94EnhanceableMisdemeanor 12.06Low‐levelFelony 21.99Mid‐levelFelony 41.11High‐levelFelony 69.79Felony‐LifeWithoutParole 200.67JuvenileDelinquency 19.78FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS) 9.66ChildinNeedofCare(CINC) 25.08Revocation 8.47

A Delphi workload analysis, consisting of an estimate of Louisiana’s public defense annualworkload2 multiplied by the Delphi Panel’s opinions listed above for each Delphi case type ispresentedinthetableonthenextpageandExhibit#3.

2Seedefinitionof“workload”presentedinAppendixAandAnnualWorkloadAnalysispresentedinAppendixH.


EstimatedWorkload

DelphiPanelResults

WorkloadAnalysis

DelphiCaseTypeAnnualCasesByCaseType

HoursPerCase

TotalHoursPerCaseType

MisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance 27,755 7.94 220,490

EnhanceableMisdemeanor 36,860 12.06 444,347Low‐levelFelony 20,242 21.99 445,155Mid‐levelFelony 21,029 41.11 864,397High‐levelFelony 16,561 69.79 1,155,847Felony‐LifeWithoutParole 575 200.67 115,383JuvenileDelinquency 9,025 19.78 178,545FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS) 1,736 9.66 16,770ChildinNeedofCare(CINC) 7,528 25.08 188,827Revocation 5,909 8.47 50,030

EstimatedAnnualWorkload 147,220 3,679,792

Atthisworkload,andtobeincompliancewiththeDelphiPanel’sconsensusopinions,3,679,792hours(approximately1,769FTEpublicdefenders3)arerequiredtoprovidereasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnormsinLouisianatomeettheannualpublic defense workloads for these Case Types.4 As of October 31, 2016, the Louisiana publicdefense system employed approximately 363 FTE public defenders. Therefore, the DelphiMethod’sprocess indicates theLouisianapublicdefensesystem iscurrentlydeficient1,406FTEattorneys.Alternatively,basedontheDelphiMethod’sresultsandanalysispresentedherein,theLouisianapublicdefensesystemcurrentlyonlyhascapacitytohandle21percentoftheworkloadincompliancewiththeDelphiPanel’sconsensusopinions.

3 FTE attorneys are based on 2,080 hours annually (52weeks@ 40 hours perweek). Therefore, this calculationconservativelyassumesallhoursareallocatedtothelegalrepresentationofannualworkload,withoutconsiderationforcontinuinglegaleducationrequirements,administrativetasks,vacation,etc.4TheDelphiPanel’sconsensusopinionspresumeadequateinvestigative,secretarialandothersupportservices.


INTRODUCTIONThe relevant legal rules and standards pertaining to effective assistance of counsel are criticalcomponents for understanding both attorneyworkloads and our analysis thereof in this study.ThedutyoftheStateofLouisianatoprovidedefendantsrepresentationincriminalcasesforthoseunabletoaffordcounselderivesfromtheSixthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,asinterpretedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,andArticle1,Section13oftheConstitutionoftheStateofLouisiana.In1963,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldintheGideoncasethatdefendantschargedwithafelony in state criminal courtwere entitled to a lawyer at state expense if theywereunable toafford counsel.5 In 1972, the United States Supreme Court extended the right to counsel tomisdemeanor cases resulting in a defendant’s loss of liberty.6 A majority of states, however,recognize the right to an attorney if a defendant is chargedwith amisdemeanor regardless ofwhetherornotimprisonmentresults. InLouisiana,therighttocounselappliestodefendantsinmisdemeanorcasesifimprisonmentispossible.7In1984,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheSixthAmendment’srequirementofcounselmeanstherightto“reasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnormsofpractice.”8In2010,theSupremeCourtnotedinPadillav.Kentuckythat:“Wehavelongrecognized that ‘prevailing norms’ of practice as reflected in American Bar AssociationStandards…are guides to determiningwhat is reasonable…although they are ‘only guides’…andnot ‘inexorable commands’…these standards may be valuable measures of the prevailingprofessionalnormsofeffectiverepresentation….”9There also are ethical rules and standards expressly applicable to attorneys providing publicdefenserepresentation inLouisiana. These includetheLouisianaRulesofProfessionalConductandtheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoardTrialCourtPerformanceStandards.TheABAStandardsforCriminalJusticearetheresultofalengthyprocessthatbeganin1964,andmostrecentlyculminatedwiththe fourtheditionof thesestandardsapprovedandpublishedby

5Gideonv.Wainwright,372U.S.335(1963).6Argersingerv.Hamlin,407U.S.25(1972).7Statev.Reeves,11So.3d1031,1056(La.2009).8Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,688(1984).9Padillav.Kentucky,559U.S.356,366‐67(2010),citing,interalia,AmericanBarAssociationStandardsforCriminalJusticerelatedtotheDefenseFunction.


theABAin2015.TheseABAStandards“aretheresultoftheconsideredjudgmentofprosecutors,defenselawyers,judges,andacademicswhohavebeendeeplyinvolvedintheprocess.”10In2012,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,inMissouriv.Frye,citingtotheDepartmentofJustice,Bureauof JusticeStatistics,noted that “ninety‐fourpercentofstateconvictionsare theresultofguiltypleas.”11Inthatcase,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtquotedwithapprovalthefollowingstatementfromaYaleLawJournalarticle:“[P]leabargaining…isnotsomeadjuncttothecriminaljusticesystem;itisthecriminaljusticesystem.”12The ABA Criminal Justice Standard related to the Defense Function, 4‐6.1(b), “Duty to ExploreDispositionWithoutTrial(Plea),”providesasfollows:

In every criminal matter, defense counsel should consider the individualcircumstancesof thecaseandof theclient,andshouldnot recommendtoaclientacceptance of a disposition offer (plea) unless and until appropriateinvestigationandstudyof thematterhasbeencompleted. Suchstudyshouldinclude:

discussionwiththeclient, analysisofrelevantlaw, analysisoftheprosecution’sevidence, analysisofpotentialdispositions,and analysisofrelevantpotentialconsequences.

Defensecounselshouldadviseagainstaguiltypleaatthefirstappearance,unless,after discussionwith the client, a speedy disposition is clearly in the client’s bestinterest.(Emphasisadded).

TheLouisianaRulesofProfessionalConductapplicabletothisstudyincludethefollowing:

Rule 1.1 (a): Competence: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, andpreparationreasonablynecessaryfortherepresentation.

10MartinMarcus,TheMakingoftheABACriminalJusticeStandards:FortyYearsofExcellence,23CRIM.JUST.10(2009),availableatwww.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards.html.11Missouriv.Frye,132S.Ct.1399,1407(2012).12Id.SeealsoR.E.Scott&W.J,Stuntz,PleaBargainingasContract,101YALEL.J.1909,1912(1992).


Rule 1.3: Diligence: A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness inrepresentingaclient.Rule1.7(a)(2):ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients:[A]lawyershallnotrepresentaclientifthe representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict ofinterestexists if…there isasignificantriskthattherepresentationofoneormoreclientswillbemateriallylimitedbythelawyer’sresponsibilitiestoanotherclient….Rule 1.16 (a) Declining or Terminating Representation: [A] lawyer shall not represent aclientor,whererepresentationhascommenced,shallwithdrawfromtherepresentationofaclientif:(1)therepresentationwillresultinviolationoftherulesofprofessionalconductorotherlaw….Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments: A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by atribunaltorepresentapersonexceptforgoodcause,suchas:(a)representingtheclientislikelytoresultinviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConductorotherlaw.

Thematerialscitedabovewerepresentedtoandconsideredbythecriminaldefenseprofessionals(bothprivatedefensepractitioners andpublic defenders) fromacrossLouisiana identifiedby aseniorpanelofprofessionalsinthefieldofcriminaldefenseandaskedtoparticipateinthisstudy.


THELOUISIANAPROJECTToestablishworkloadstandards,theLouisianaProjectworkloadstudyinvolvedthreephasesofanalysestoestimatetheappropriateamountoftimeattorneysshouldspendoncertaincasetasksinvolvingcertaincasetypes.Thisstudy(“TheLouisianaProject”)isapublicdefenseworkloadstudyconsistingofthreemainphases:(1)ananalysisofLouisiana’spublicdefensesystem’shistoriccaseloadsandstaffing;(2)ananalysisofactualtimespentbypublicdefendersonrecentcaseloadsinpilotdistricts;and(3)theapplicationoftheDelphisurveyprocesstoidentifyhowmuchtimeanattorneyshouldspend,onaverage, inprovidingrepresentation incertain typesofcriminalcases toprovidereasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnorms.ThethreephasesoftheLouisianaProjectstudyarediscussedindetailinthefollowingsections.Due to the LPDB’s current funding and Louisiana’s current economic condition, certain publicdefensedistricts throughout the state experienced a ‘restrictionof services’ during the analysisperiodcoveredbytheworkloadstudy.Theimpactsofrestrictionofservices,andothersignificanteventsoccurringduringtheanalysisperiod,arediscussedasappropriateinsubsequentsectionsofthisreport.Forthepurposesofthisreport,thetermsattorney“caseload”and“workload”aredefinedindetailinAppendixA.


OVERVIEWOFHISTORICALCASELOADSANDSTAFFING

OverviewofLouisianaPublicDefenderSystem

TheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoard’sauthorityincludesbudgeting,personnelmanagement,andcompliancewithprofessionalstandardsforall42judicialdistrictsofpublicdefendersintheStateof Louisiana. An understanding of the Louisiana public defender system’s historic criminalcaseloadsandpersonnelisacriticalcomponentoftheworkloadstudy.13Historical case data was obtained from LPDB’s case management system, Justice WorksdefenderData™,whichisutilizedfortrackingcriminalcaseinformation,suchinformationincludescasefilingsandtrackingbydistrict,chargetype,assignedattorney,andclientidentification.ThisstudyanalyzedallnewpublicdefensecriminalcasesrepresentedfromJanuary1,2013throughOctober31,2016(seeExhibit#1.1).TheLPDBprovidedstaffinginformationfromcompensationreportsfortheperiodfromJanuary1,2014throughOctober31,2016.Thesereportsprovidedpersonneldata,including,butnotlimitedto,name,title,employmentclassification,assigneddistrict,andhoursworked(seeExhibit#1.2).

PublicDefenseCriminalCasesAnalysis

Basedonananalysisofthehistoricalcriminalcaseload14data,theLPDBrepresented,onaverage,156,408new criminal casesper year from2013 through2016. A summaryof theLPDB’snewcriminalcasesbyCaseTypeispresentedinthetableonthenextpage.15

13ThedatapresentedinthisanalysisisonacalendaryearbasisendingDecember31st;however,certainsourcedataprovidedbytheLPDBwasonafiscalyearbasisforperiodsendingJune30.14SeeAppendixAforthedefinitionofcaseload.15Newcriminalcasesaredefinedascasesoriginatingduringthecalendaryear,nottotalcasesopenduringtheyearwhichincludescasesoriginatinginprioryears.


CaseType16 2013 2014 2015Annualized2016

Capital 107 88 97 108ChildinNeedofCare(CINC)* 6,799 8,242 8,689 7,528EnhanceableMisdemeanor* 33,785 34,768 36,507 36,860Felony–LifeWithoutParole* 547 506 469 575FineOnly 1,009 1,072 952 1,375FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS)* 1,765 1,591 1,853 1,736

High‐levelFelony* 17,692 17,014 16,021 16,561JuvenileDelinquency* 10,259 9,224 9,336 9,025Low‐levelFelony* 18,532 18,197 19,420 20,242Mid‐levelFelony* 19,122 19,832 20,029 21,029MisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance* 44,887 37,852 34,549 27,755

Other 1,877 1,711 1,928 1,770Revocation* 6,169 6,994 5,669 5,909TotalNewCases 162,550 157,091 155,519 150,473TotalNewDelphiCases* 159,557 154,220 152,542 147,220TotalOpenCases17 N/A 225,960 255,392 271,843

As illustrated in the table above, approximately 98 percent of new criminal cases annually areNewDelphiCases(*)includedinthisworkloadstudy.

PublicDefenseStaffingAnalysis

Basedonananalysisofthehistoricalpersonnelemploymentdata,totalstaffemployedfluctuatedannually. The Louisiana public defender offices employed several classifications of attorneys,rangingfromfull‐timeattorneys(40hoursaweek)tointermittentattorneys(10hoursorlessaweek).18 In the analysis, total attorney compensation hours reported by all classifications ofattorneyswereconvertedtofull‐timeequivalents(FTEs).19AspresentedinExhibit#1.2andinthetableonthenextpage,thepublicdefensesystem,onaverage,employedapproximately386FTEattorneys. As of October 31, 2016, employment was approximately 363 FTE attorneys. The

16Anasterisk(*)indicatestheCaseTypewasincludedintheworkloadstudy.SeeAppendixFfordetaileddescriptionsofeachCaseTypeincludedintheweightedcaseloadstudy.17Totalopencasesrepresentthetotalcasesoriginatinginthecurrentperiodandcaseswhichremainopenfromprioryears,basedonlyoncasesoriginatingbetweenJanuary1,2013andOctober31,2016.18 The Louisiana public defender offices comprise several types of employment classifications (contract, full‐time,part‐time,etc.).Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,personnelarepresentedonafull‐timeequivalentbasis.19FTEattorneysweredeterminedbydividingthetotalhoursworkedby2080(52weeks@40hoursperweek).FTEattorneysfor2016werepro‐ratedtoaccountforapartialperiodof10months.


Louisiana public defender offices employ, on average, approximately 172 FTE support staff toassistattorneys(officemanagerstoinvestigators).

PublicDefenseStaffing 2014 2015 2016TotalFull‐timeEquivalentAttorneys 403 391 363

TotalFull‐timeEquivalentSupportStaff 171 178 168

RestrictionofServicesandOtherEvents

In recentperiods, theLouisianapublicdefender systemexperienced significant fundingdeficitsduetotheState’seconomiccondition,amongotherfactors. Asaresult,certainLouisianapublicdefensedistrictsexperienceda‘restrictionofservices’(seeAppendixBforfurtherdetails).Intheeventapublicdefenderdistrict’sbudget forecast indicatesexpenditureswillexceedrevenues,adistrictofficemayenterintoarestrictionofservicespursuanttoLPDB’sprotocoltoalleviateandpreventexcessiveworkloads.BasedonareviewoftheServiceRestrictionProtocol20,theprotocolisinvokedbasedonthecircumstancesanddiscretionofaChiefDistrictDefenderandtheLPDB.Inthe event of a restriction of services, typically, districts may discharge support staff (e.g.,investigators), contract attorneysworkingpart‐time,orwaitlist certainnewcases.According totheprotocol, “excessivecaseloads impair theabilityofpublicdefenseserviceproviders tomeettheethicalobligationsimposeduponallattorneys,publicandprivate,bytheRulesofProfessionalConduct.”21Asaresultofpublicdefenderdistrictsenteringintoperiodsofrestrictionofservices,certainnewcriminalcaseswerewaitlistedovertheperiodanalyzed,asdetailedinthetableonthenextpageandExhibit#1.3.20LA.ADMIN.CODE22:VXCh.17,in38La.Register,Vol.38,No.3,March20,2012.21Id.at814.


CaseTypeWaitlisted22 2013 2014 2015Annualized2016

ChildinNeedofCare(CINC)* 0 0 1 2EnhanceableMisdemeanor* 59 120 238 217Felony–LifeWithoutParole* 2 4 8 6FineOnly 0 0 0 1High‐levelFelony* 46 116 251 215Low‐levelFelony* 60 106 315 257Mid‐levelFelony* 82 122 353 290MisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance*

37 51 53 50

Other 1 1 7 8Revocation* 0 0 2 10

TotalNewCases 287 520 1,228 1,057

TotalNewDelphiCases* 286 519 1,221 1,048

22Anasterisk(*)indicatestheCaseTypewasincludedintheworkloadstudy.


OVERVIEWOFTHELOUISIANAPUBLICDEFENDERTIMESTUDYIn support of the time study component of theworkload study, the LPDB implemented a timekeeping process for certain public defense districts. The time study was designed to identifyapproximately how much time public defenders are currently recording for the legalrepresentationofcriminalcasesinLouisiana.The timestudywasconductedbypublicdefenseattorneys in fourofLouisiana’spublicdefensedistricts, which volunteered to participate as ‘pilot’ programs (‘pilot districts’) to implementdetailedtimekeeping.Thisstudyanalyzedtimespentbypublicdefenders23oncertaintasksforasixmonthperiodfromMay1,2016throughOctober31,2016.Ageneraloverviewofeachofthepilot districts listed below, including demographics, public defense personnel, and impacts ofrestrictionofservicesaredetailedinAppendixC.24

10thJudicialDistrict–NatchitochesParish 19thJudicialDistrict–EastBatonRougeParish 22ndJudicialDistrict–St.TammanyandWashingtonParishes 41stJudicialDistrict–OrleansParish

Thetimekeepingsystemwasutilizedfortrackingthetimethatpersonnelinpilotdistrictsspenton criminal cases, specifically, time spent on certain Delphi Case Tasks related to Case Tasksincludedintheworkloadstudy.Inconjunctionwithananalysisoftimekeepingdatafromthepilotdistricts,P&Npersonnelinterviewedexperiencedpublicdefendersfromthepilotdistrictstogaininsightregardingthetimekeepingprocess.PilotDistrictComparisonThe sampled pilot districts represented, on average, 36,593 new criminal cases per year from2013through2016(annualizedyeartodateOctober31,2016),orapproximately23percentofallnewcriminalcasesstatewide(seeExhibit#1.1).AsillustratedinExhibit#1.2,thesepilotdistrictofficesemployedapproximately117FTEattorneys(30percentofallattorneysstatewide)and73FTEsupportstaff(42percentofallsupportstaffstatewide).The19thand41stpilotdistrictswereinarestrictionofservicesstateatthestartofthestudy.Inadditiontorestrictionofservices,the19thdistrictwasimpactedbyextraordinarycircumstancesrelatedtotheprotestsduringJuly2016,andthefloodsin2016,causingthecourtsystemtoclose

23Thisstudyonlyconsiderstimeenteredbypublicdefenders.24 The LPDB andABA selected these districts as a representative sample of Louisiana public defenders across thestate.


temporarily.AdetailedcomparisonofthepilotdistrictsandstatewidecaseswaitlistedduringtheperiodanalyzedispresentedinExhibit#1.3.

TimeStudyAnalysis

Time keeping data from the public defenders and support personnel in the pilot districts isseparatedintothreemainclassifications:GeneralWorkRelated(“GWR”),CaseRelated(“CR”),andCaseSpecific(“CS”),asdiscussedbelow.

GWR– this isproductivetimeunrelatedtocasework(e.g.,performingadministrativeororganizationaltasks).

CR–timespentworkingonmorethanonecaseandnotattributabletoanyindividualcaseorcasesbythetimekeeper(e.g.,ablockoftimeinMisdemeanorCourtorspentansweringseveralclientvoicemailsinquicksuccession).

CS – this is time spentworking on a single, specific case, and requires that the case belinkedtothetimeentrybythetimekeeper(e.g.,Delphicasetasks25).

Basedonananalysisofthetimekeepingrecordsforthecombinedpilotdistrictsforthesixmonthperiod, approximately 74 percent of the time was spent on Case Related and Case Specificfunctions,aspresentedbelow.

GWRHours CRHours CSHours TotalHours

6MonthTotal 23,502 35,577 32,656 91,736

Percentage 25.62% 38.78% 35.60% 100.00%

Aspreviouslydiscussed, the timestudywasdesignedto identifyapproximatelyhowmuch timepublicdefendersarecurrentlyrecordingonDelphicasetypes(CaseSpecifictime),whichwouldbecomparedtotheDelphiPanelresultsofhowmuchtimeattorneysshouldspendonDelphicases.However, inananalysisofCaseRelated time recorded,71percent (25,159 totalhours)ofCaseRelated timewas spentonDelphi case tasks.This timewas recordedasCaseRelated time,butuponinquiry,itwasdeterminedthattimespentonDelphicasetasksshouldhavecorrectlybeenreportedtoaspecificcaseandincludedintheCaseSpecifictimerecords.26Consequently,thetimekeeping study understates the Case Specific time spent on legal representation of clients onspecificcasesbypublicdefendersduringtheanalysisperiod.25SeeAppendixFfordetaileddescriptionsofDelphicasetasks.26Basedondiscussionswith experiencedpublicdefenders inpilotdistricts, theABA, and theLPDB staff, theCaseRelatedtimekeepingrecordsprovided insufficientdetail toallocate the timespentonDelphicase tasks tospecificcasetypes.


Asaresultoftheanalysispresentedaboveandforthepurposesofthisreport,allpublicdefendertimebasedonFTEattorneystaffinglevels(at2,080hoursannuallyperattorney)wasutilizedinlieu of Case Specific time. Therefore, this FTE calculation conservatively assumes all hours areallocated to the legal representation of annual workload, without consideration for continuinglegaleducationrequirements,administrativetasks,vacation,etc.


OVERVIEWOFTHEDELPHIMETHODTheworkloadstudyapplied theDelphiMethod,amulti‐roundsurveyprocessdevelopedby theRandCorporationandusedinarangeofindustriesandprofessions.InthecontextofapplyingtheDelphi Method to estimate attorney workloads, RubinBrown, LLP and the ABA designed andconducted a workload study of theMissouri State Public Defender program, issued June 2014(“MissouriProject”).27TheDelphiMethod,process, andanalysis applied in theMissouriProjecthasbeenimplementedinsimilarworkloadstudiesofpublicdefendersystemsinotherstates,andtheMissouri Project provided pertinent guidance for the Louisiana Project. An overviewof theDelphi Method, including use of the method in determining appropriate caseloads for defenseattorneys,issummarizedbelowanddescribedinAppendixD.

DelphiMethod

TheDelphiMethodoffersareliableandstructuredmeanstointegrateopinionsofhighlyinformedprofessionalstodevelopaconsensusopinion.Asamethodologicalstrategy,theDelphiMethodisan iterative process of surveys given to a group of professionals, with structured feedbackpresented to the experts at each interval stage. The surveying practices applied by the DelphiMethod can be either interviews or questionnaires that focus on fundamental questions ofsignificancetothegroupofexpertsconvened.In general, a group of experts first provide individual, anonymous responses on a given topicbased on the background information provided and their expertise. Next, professionals areprovided the same survey with the inclusion of the aggregated results of the initial survey,including peer response means and ranges. At this time, the participants may then choose toadjusttheirinitialresponsesbasedonthefeedbackprovidedbytheaggregatedresultsandtheirexpertise.This iterativeprocessofalternatingparticipant’s independentassessmentswithotheranonymous aggregated peer response data enables professional opinions to be converted intoobjectiveconsensusopinion.Sinceitsintroduction,theDelphiMethodhasbeenemployedacrossadiversearrayofindustries,such as health care, education, information systems, transportation, and engineering.28 Thepurpose of its use beyond forecasting has ranged from “program planning, needs assessment,

27RubinBrownonbehalfofABA’sStandingCommitteeonLegalAidandIndigentDefendants,TheMissouriProject,AStudyoftheMissouriPublicDefenderSystemandAttorneyWorkloadStandards(2014),availableathttp://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/2014/ls_sclaid_5c_the_missouri_project_report.authcheckdam.pdf28HAROLDLINSTONEANDMURRAYTUROFF,THEDELPHIMETHOD:TECHNIQUESANDAPPLICATIONS(2002);GeneRowe&GeorgeWright,TheDelphiTechniqueasaForecastingTool:IssuesandAnalysis,15INT’LJ.FORECASTING353‐54(1999).


policydetermination,andresourceutilization.”29Withinthelegalsystem,earlyexamplesofuseofthe DelphiMethod can be traced back a couple of decades and are considered an appropriatemethodologyforaweightedcaseloadstudy.30ExamplesoftheseattemptsweresponsoredbyboththeNationalAssociationofCourtManagementandtheNationalCenterforStateCourts.31Theseeffortswereprincipallychargedwithassessingjudicialandcourtsupportstaffneeds.32

29Chia‐ChienHsuandBrianA.Sandford,TheDelphiTechnique:MakingSenseofConsensus,(2007),availableathttp://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf.30NORMANLEFSTEIN,SECURINGREASONABLECASELOADS:ETHICSANDLAWOFPUBLICDEFENSE140‐51(Am.BarAssoc.2011),availableathttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/indigent_defense_systems_improvement/publications/case_guidebook.html.31NationalCenterforStateCourts’reports,availableathttp://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Court‐Management/Workload‐and‐Resource‐Assessment/Resource‐Guide.aspx.32MatthewKleiman,CythiaLeeandBrianOstrom,WorkloadAssessment:AData‐drivenManagementTool for theJudicialBranch(NationalCenterforStateCourts2013).


OVERVIEWOFDELPHIPROCESSThe Louisiana Project’s workload study relied upon the Delphi survey process to identify howmuchtime,onaverage,anattorneyshould spendondifferent typesofcriminalcasestoprovidereasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnorms.AnoverviewandsummaryoftheDelphiprocessasappliedintheworkloadstudyisdescribedbelow.

DelphiMethodologyFramework

TheDelphiMethodwasdesignedasaseriesofsurveys,consistingofthreerounds.Thefirstandsecondroundswereconductedasanonymousonlinesurveys,andthethirdroundwasconductedasanin‐persondiscussion.Inrespondingtothesurveys,participantswererequestedtoconsidertheABAandLPBDstandardsandrules33applicabletodefenserepresentation,aswellastheirownexpertise in providing Louisiana criminal defense representation. The survey participants,surveys,andresultsarediscussedbelow.DelphiSurveyLuminariesAn independent panel of individuals34 in the field of criminal defense consisting of Mr. JamesBoren (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), Mr. Mark Cunningham (New Orleans, Louisiana), Mr. JohnDiGiulio (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), and Mr. Daniel Martiny (Metairie, Louisiana) selectedapproximately 125 participants (“luminaries”) in the field of Louisiana criminal defenserepresentation to participate in the workload study. The selected luminaries consisted ofapproximately65privatedefensepractitionersand60publicdefenders.Aspreviouslydiscussed,the Delphi Method is designed as an iterative survey process; therefore only the luminariescompletingeachsurveyroundwerepermittedtoadvancetothenextroundofsurveys.DelphiRoundOneSurveyIn the Round One survey, luminaries were requested to use the ABA and LPBD standards fordefense representation, as well as their own expertise in criminal defense representation tocompleteanonlinesurvey.Thesurveywasdesignedtoidentifyhowmuchtimeanattorneyshouldspendondifferent types of criminal cases to provide reasonably effective assistance of counselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnorms.35ForeachoftheelevenCaseTypesconsideredinthestudy (e.g.,High‐LevelFelony, etc.), the luminarieswere requested toanswer the following twoquestionsaboutelevendifferentCaseTasks(e.g.,ClientCommunication,etc.):33ThestandardsandrulesreferencedinthestudyincludetheABACriminalJusticeStandardsrelatedtotheDefenseFunction,theLouisianaPublicDefenderBoardStandards,andtheLouisianaRulesofProfessionalConduct.34 The independent panel of individuals was selected by the ABA, LPDB, and highly‐regarded Louisiana criminaldefensepractitioners.35SeeAppendixE.


A. For (this Case Type),when the following Case Tasks are performed, howmuch time (inminutes) is required on average to perform each Case Task with reasonably effectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnorms?

B. Inwhatpercentageof(thisCaseType)onaverageshouldeachofthefollowingCaseTasksbeperformed?36

Inthecontextofansweringthequestionsoutlinedabove,luminarieswereinstructedtoconsiderthefollowinginconstructingtheirresponses:

accountforthecumulativetimerequiredtocompleteaCaseTaskoverthelifeofacase, presumeadequateinvestigative,secretarialandothersupportservices,and inthecontextoftheaveragecaseofitstype,nottheexceptionalcase.

CaseTypes

TheluminariesintheDelphisurveysconsideredthefollowingelevenCaseTypes37(seeAppendixFfordetaileddescriptions):

Case(Offense)Type MisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance

EnhanceableMisdemeanor

Low‐levelFelony

Mid‐levelFelony

High‐levelFelony

Felony‐LifeWithoutParole

JuvenileDelinquency

FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS)

ChildinNeedofCare(CINC)

Revocation

Appeals/Post‐ConvictionReview(PCR)38

36 Inmaking these judgments, the expert luminarypanelistswere also asked to take into account that a relativelysmallpercentageofcaseswouldproceedtoajuryorbenchtrialandthatarelativelysmallpercentageofcaseswouldbedismissedwhilerepresentationwasbeingprovided.37Appeals/Post‐ConvictionReviewCaseTypeswereinitiallypartoftheworkloadstudybutlaterexcluded.38DuringtheDelphipanel’scollaborationanddiscussioninthefinalround,participantsdecidedtoexcludefromthecasetypesAppeals/Post‐ConvictionReview(“PCR”).IntheDelphipanel’sjudgment,duetothevaryingcomplexitiesoftheCaseTypeaspresented,itwasinappropriatetorenderanopinionfortheAppealsandPCRcasesbecausetheyarenotsufficientlysimilartooneanother.Consequently,ouranalysisexcludesaconsensusopinionoftimealawyershouldexpecttospendonthisCaseType.


CaseTasks

The luminaries in theDelphi surveys considered the following elevenCaseTasks performed ineachoftheelevenCaseTypes(seeAppendixFfordetaileddescriptions):

CaseTaskArea CaseTasks

ClientCommunication ClientCommunication

Discovery/Investigative

CollectingRecords Interviews/FieldInvestigation Experts

CasePreparation

LegalResearchandWriting Negotiations CourtPreparation CasePreparation Sentencing

CourtTime CourtTimeClientCare ClientCare

SummaryAnalysisoftheRoundOneSurveyP&NissuedtheRoundOnesurveytoapproximately125luminariesonDecember15,2015.Uponthe conclusion, 62 luminaries completed the survey with 36 identifying themselves as privatedefense practitioners and 26 identifying themselves as public defenders; participants had anaverageof27yearsofexperience.P&Ncollectedall thesurveyresponsesandanalyzedtheresults formeaningfultrends.ForeachCase Type, a trimmed mean39 and peer range40 were calculated for the number of minutesrequiredtoperformeachCaseTask,andthepercentageofcasesinwhicheachCaseTaskshouldbeperformed.RoundTwoSurveyThe Round Two survey was similar in nature to the Round One survey, except the summarystatistics from peer responses from the Round One survey were provided for the luminaries’reference(seeAppendixE).

39Trimmedmeanistheaverageoftheresponsesbetweenthe25thand75thpercentileofallresponses.40Peerrangeisbasedonthe25thpercentile(low)and75thpercentile(high)ofallresponses.


SummaryAnalysisoftheRoundTwoSurveyP&N issued theRoundTwosurvey to the62eligible luminariesonFebruary2,2016.Upon theconclusion,48luminariescompletedthesurveywith28identifyingthemselvesasprivatedefensepractitionersand20identifyingthemselvesaspublicdefenders;participantshadanaverageof29yearsofexperience.P&Ncollectedall thesurveyresponsesandanalyzedtheresults formeaningfultrends.ForeachCaseType,atrimmedmeanandpeerrangewerecalculatedforthenumberofminutesrequiredtoperform each Case Task, and the percentage of cases in which each Case Task should beperformed.DelphiPanelAmeetingof theDelphiPanelwas the final iterationof theDelphi surveys. In theDelphiPanelsurvey,41luminarieswererequestedtousethefollowinginformationforguidanceincompletinganin‐personsurvey:

ABAandLPBDstandardsfordefenserepresentation, LouisianaRulesofProfessionalConduct, theirexpertisefromexperienceintheLouisianacriminaldefensefield, thesummarystatisticsfrompeerresponsesfromtheRoundTwosurvey,and collaborationanddiscussionwiththeirDelphiPanelpeerluminaries.

ForeachCaseType,theDelphiPanelwasaskedtodetermineaconsensusopinionofthenumberofminutesrequired toperformeachCaseTaskand thepercentageof cases inwhicheachCaseTaskshouldbeperformed.SummaryAnalysisoftheDelphiPanelSurveyTheABAandP&NcompletedthefinalDelphiPanelsurveyin‐persononApril26,2016,attendedby 23 luminaries. The participants averaged 29 years of law practice with 12 identifyingthemselvesasprivatedefensepractitionersand11identifyingthemselvesaspublicdefenders.TheDelphiPanelresultsyieldedtheconsensusopinions for thenumberofminutesrequiredonaveragetoperformandthepercentageofcasesinwhicheachCaseTaskshouldbeperformedforeach of the eleven Case Types. These results are presented in detail in Exhibits #2.1‐2.3 andsummarizedinthefollowingsection.

41SeeAppendixGforalistoftheDelphiPanelmembersandtheDelphiPanel’ssurveyinstructions.


THEDELPHIMETHODRESULTSP&N collected the Delphi Panel consensus opinions for the number of minutes required, onaverage,toperformeachCaseTaskandthepercentageofcasesinwhicheachCaseTaskshouldbeperformedforeachoftheelevenCaseTypes.InordertodeterminetheamountoftimethatshouldbespentoneachCaseType, theCaseTasktimewasmultipliedbythecorrespondingCaseTaskfrequency(percentageperformed)toarriveatanexpectedtimeforeachCaseTask.TheexpectedtimeforeachCaseTaskwastotaledbyCaseTypetoestimatethetotalamountofexpectedtimeforeachCaseType.The Delphi Method’s structured and reliable technique integrates opinions of highly informedprofessionals to develop consensus opinions. The Delphi Panel, consisting of Louisiana privatedefensepractitionersandpublicdefenders,providedprofessionalconsensusopinionsregardingthe appropriate amount of time an attorney should spend on certain case types to providereasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnormsintheStateofLouisiana.TheresultsoftheDelphiPanelsurveyarepresentedbelow.

DelphiPanelSurveyResultsCaseType HoursPerCaseMisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance 7.94EnhanceableMisdemeanor 12.06Low‐levelFelony 21.99Mid‐levelFelony 41.11High‐levelFelony 69.79Felony‐LifeWithoutParole 200.67JuvenileDelinquency 19.78FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS) 9.66ChildinNeedofCare(CINC) 25.08Revocation 8.47

A Delphi workload analysis, consisting of an estimate of Louisiana’s public defense annualworkload42multipliedbytheDelphiPanel’sopinionslistedaboveforeachCaseTypeispresentedinthetableonthenextpageandExhibit#3.

42SeedefinitionofWorkloadpresentedinAppendixAandAnnualWorkloadAnalysisinAppendixH.


EstimatedWorkload

DelphiPanelResults

WorkloadAnalysis

DelphiCaseTypeAnnualCasesByCaseType

HoursPerCase

TotalHoursPerCaseType

MisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance 27,755 7.94 220,490

EnhanceableMisdemeanor 36,860 12.06 444,347Low‐levelFelony 20,242 21.99 445,155Mid‐levelFelony 21,029 41.11 864,397High‐levelFelony 16,561 69.79 1,155,847Felony‐LifeWithoutParole 575 200.67 115,383JuvenileDelinquency 9,025 19.78 178,545FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS) 1,736 9.66 16,770ChildinNeedofCare(CINC) 7,528 25.08 188,827Revocation 5,909 8.47 50,030

EstimatedAnnualWorkload 147,220 3,679,792

Atthisworkload,andtobeincompliancewiththeDelphiPanel’sconsensusopinions,3,679,792hours(approximately1,769FTEpublicdefenders43)arerequiredtoprovidereasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnormsinLouisianatomeettheannualpublic defenseworkloads for these Case Types.44 As of October 31, 2016, the Louisiana publicdefense system employed 363 FTE public defenders. Therefore, the Delphi Method’s processindicates the Louisiana public defense system is currently deficient 1,406 FTE attorneys.Alternatively, based on Delphi Method’s results and analysis presented herein, the Louisianapublic defense system currently only has capacity to handle 21 percent of the workload incompliancewiththeDelphiPanel’sconsensusopinions.

43 FTE attorneys are based on 2,080 hours annually (52weeks@40 hours perweek). Therefore, this calculationconservativelyassumesallhoursareallocatedtothelegalrepresentationofannualworkload,withoutconsiderationforcontinuinglegaleducationrequirements,administrativetasks,vacation,etc.44TheDelphiPanel’sconsensusopinionspresumeadequateinvestigative,secretarialandothersupportservices.

Appendices

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixA

DEFINITIONOFCASELOADANDWORKLOADFor thepurposesof theLouisianaProject, thisreportdefines the termsattorney“caseload”and“workload.”As referenced in this report, “caseload” refers to the total number and different kinds of casesassigned to either a jurisdictional district of the LPDB or to the entire LPDB during a certainperiodof time,whichcanbe less thanayear,ayear,or formultipleyears. “Caseload”canalsorefertothecasesonwhichanattorneyorgroupofattorneysareworkingatanygiventime.As referenced in this report, “workload” refers to an attorney’s responsibilities for all cases onwhich an attorney works during the course of a year, as well as the attorney’s many otherresponsibilitiesnotpertainingspecificallytothecasesforwhichtheattorneyisresponsible.TheDelphi survey process used in this research study addressed only the time requirements ofattorneys for legal representation tasksperformedon their various typesof casesunder study.However,theDelphisurveyprocessdidnotaddressthetimerequiredofattorneysfortheirnon‐case related activities, such as staff meetings, mentoring or supervision of other attorneys,attendanceatcontinuinglegaleducationprograms,andbaractivities.

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixB

RESTRICTIONOFSERVICESNOTICEOFINTENT

OfficeoftheGovernor

LouisianaPublicDefenderBoard

ServiceRestrictionProtocol(LAC22:XV.Chapter17)

ThePublicDefenderBoard,astateagencywithintheOfficeoftheGovernor,proposestoadopt

LAC 22:XV.Chapter 17, as authorized byR.S. 15:148. These proposedRules are promulgated inaccordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, R.S. 49:950, et seq. Thepurpose of these Rules is to establish policies and procedures to ensure that district publicdefenders’expendituresdonotexceedtheir revenuesand thatpublicdefenseserviceprovidersmeettheethicalobligationsimposeduponthembytheRulesofProfessionalConduct.

Title22CORRECTIONS,CRIMINALJUSTICEANDLAWENFORCEMENT

PartXV.PublicDefenderBoardChapter17. ServiceRestrictionProtocol§1701. Purpose,FindingsandIntentionsA. OnMay25,2011,theLegislativeAuditorissuedareportentitled,"LouisianaDistrictPublic

DefendersCompliancewithReportRequirements."Thereport,preparedinaccordancewithR.S.24:515.1.F,focusedlargelyuponthefactthattwenty‐eightofLouisiana’sforty‐twodistrictpublicdefenders had expenditures that exceeded revenues during the 18‐month period beginningJanuary1,2009andendingJune30,2010.Thereportexplains,atp.6,that:

[D]uring 2008 and 2009, the Louisiana Public Defender Board ("Board") received lessmoneythanithadrequestedduringthebudgeting/appropriationsprocess.Topreservethestate'spublicdefendersystem,theBoardreduced,andinsomecases,eliminatedstatefunding to local public defender districts that hadpositive fundbalances.This allowedstate funding to be directed to those districtswith the greatest financial need. Twelvedistrictswererequiredtousetheir fundbalancesto financeoperations in2008and28districts were required to do so in 2009. It was a limited solution that allowed thecontinuationofthepublicdefensesystemduringleaneconomictimes.Atthesametime,thisseriouslydepletedmostofthelocaldistricts'fundbalances.

As a result of this spending pattern, the Legislative Auditor recommended that the Board

monitorthefiscaloperationsandfinancialpositionofallDistrictDefendersand,further,provideguidancetoDistrictDefenderstoensurethatDistrictsdonotspendmoremoneythantheycollect.InordertocomplywiththeLegislativeAuditor'srecommendationtoprovideguidancetopublic


defenders toensure thatDistrictsdonotspendmore funds thantheyreceive, theBoardadoptsthisServiceRestrictionProtocol.B. The Board recognizes that excessive caseloads affect the quality of representation beingrenderedbypublicdefenseserviceprovidersandtherebycompromisethereliabilityofverdictsandthreatentheconvictionofinnocentpersons.C. The Board further recognizes that excessive caseloads impair the ability of public defenseserviceproviderstomeettheethicalobligations imposeduponallattorneys,publicandprivate,by theRulesofProfessionalConduct. TheBoard finds thatbybreaching theethicalobligationsimposedbytheRulesofProfessionalConduct,apublicdefenseserviceproviderfailstosatisfytheState’sobligationtoprovideeffectiveassistanceofcounseltoindigentdefendantsateachcriticalstage of the proceeding. The relevant ethical obligations imposed by the Rules of ProfessionalConduct include, but are not limited to, Rules 1.1 (requiring competent representation), 1.3(requiring“reasonablediligenceandpromptness” inrepresentation),1.4(requiringpromptandreasonablecommunicationswiththeclient),1.7(a)(2)(a“lawyershallnotrepresentaclientif…thereisasignificantriskthattherepresentationofoneormoreclientswillbemateriallylimitedbythelawyer’sresponsibilitiestoanotherclient,aformerclientorathirdperson…”),1.16(a)(1)(requiringa lawyer to “withdraw from the representationof a client if…the representationwillresult inviolationof theRulesofProfessionalConductor law.”),5.1(a)and(b) (imposingona“firm” theobligation to make reasonable efforts toensure that the firmhas in effectmeasuresgiving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of ProfessionalConduct”andthata“lawyerhavingdirectsupervisoryauthorityoveranotherlawyershallmakereasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of ProfessionalConduct”),and6.2(a)(a“lawyershallnotseektoavoidappointmentbyatribunaltorepresentapersonexceptforgoodcause,suchas…representingtheclientislikelytoresultinviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConductorother law.”). TheBoardfurtherrecognizesthataDistrict oraDistrictDefender’sofficemaybea“firm”forthepurposesofRuleofProfessionalConduct5.1(a).D. When thisProtocoluses "shall" or "shall not," it is intended to imposebindingobligations.When "should" or "shouldnot" is used, the text is intended as a statement ofwhat is or is notappropriate conduct, but not as a binding rule. When "may" is used, it denotes permissiblediscretionor,dependingonthecontext,referstoactionthatisnotprohibitedspecifically.E. ThisProtocolisintendedtobereadconsistentlywithconstitutionalrequirements,statutes,theRulesofProfessionalConduct,othercourt rulesanddecisional lawand in thecontextofallrelevantcircumstances.F.ThisProtocolisneitherdesignednorintendedasabasisforcivilliability,criminalprosecutionorthejudicialevaluationofanypublicdefenseserviceprovider’sallegedmisconduct.G.Ifanyphrase,clause,sentenceorprovisionofthisProtocolisdeclaredinvalidforanyreason,suchinvaliditydoesnotaffecttheotherprovisionsofthisProtocolthatcanbegiveneffectwithouttheinvalidprovision,andtothisend,theprovisionsofthisProtocolareseverable.TheprovisionsofthisProtocolshallbeliberallyconstruedtoeffectuatetheProtocol’spurposes.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).


§1703. DefinitionsA. AsusedinthisProtocol,unlessthecontextclearlyindicatesotherwise,thefollowingterms

shallhavethefollowingmeanings:1. Board.TheBoardmeanstheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoard.2. Boardstaff.BoardstaffmeansoneormoremembersoftheexecutivestaffoftheBoardasset

forthinR.S.15:150assignedbytheBoardortheStatePublicDefendertoperformthedutiessetforthherein.3. Case.CasemeanscaseasdefinedinR.S.15:174.C.4. Caseload. Caseload means the number of cases handled by a public defender service

provider.ThecaseloadofaDistrictisthesumofallpublicdefenderserviceproviders’caseloadsinthatDistrict.5. District. DistrictmeansthejudicialdistrictinwhichaDistrictDefendersupervisesservice

providersandenforcesstandardsandguidelines.6. District Defender. District Defendermeans an attorney under contractwith the Board to

supervisepublicdefenseserviceprovidersandenforcestandardsandguidelineswithinajudicialdistrict ormultiple judicial districts. Also knownas adistrict public defenderor chief indigentdefender.7. Districtindigentdefenderfund.Districtindigentdefenderfundmeansthefundprovidedfor

inR.S.15:168.8. Fiscalcrisis.Afiscalcrisismeansthatadistrictindigentdefenderfundisunabletosupport

itsexpenditureswithrevenuesreceivedfromallsourcesandanyaccruedfundbalance.Becauseadistrictindigentdefenderfundmaynotexpendamountsinexcessofrevenuesandaccruedfundbalance,aDistrictfacingafiscalcrisismustrestrictpublicdefenseservicestocutbackonorslowthegrowthofexpenditures.Servicesshouldberestricted in themanner that theBoardand theaffectedDistrictDefenderdeterminetobetheleastharmfultothecontinuationofpublicdefenseserviceswithintheDistrict.9. Notice.Noticemeanswrittennoticegivenasprovidedforherein.

a. Between the District Defender and the Board or Board staff. Notice between a DistrictDefenderandtheBoardorBoardstaff,asrequiredinthisProtocol,maybegivenbymail,facsimiletransmissionor electronicmail. If notice is givenby certifiedor registeredmail, notice shall beeffective upon receipt by the addressee. If notice is given bymail that is not sent certified orregistered,byfacsimiletransmission,orbyelectronicmail,noticeshallbeeffectiveonlyafterthesending party confirms telephonically with the receiving party that all pages, includingattachments,werereceivedbythereceivingparty.b. From theDistrict Defender to the Court. Notice from aDistrict Defender to the Court, as

required in this Protocol, shall be given by filing noticewith the affected District’s clerks(s) ofcourtandhand‐deliveringcopiestotheofficesoftheChiefJudgeandtheDistrictAttorneyoftheaffectedDistrict.c. From the District Defender to Others. Notice from a District Defender to persons not

otherwise specifiedmay be given by hand‐delivery or by certified or registeredmail; notice of


shallbeeffectiveuponhand‐deliveryordepositintotheU.S.mail.10. Public defender service provider. Public defender service provider means an attorney whoprovideslegalservicestoindigentpersonsincriminalproceedingsinwhichtherighttocounselattachesundertheUnitedStatesandLouisianaconstitutionsasaDistrictemployeeorasan independent contractor. Unless the context or surrounding circumstances clearly indicateotherwise,apublicdefenderserviceproviderincludesaDistrictDefender.11. RulesofProfessionalConduct. RulesofProfessionalConductmean theLouisianaRulesofProfessionalConduct.12. State Public Defender. State Public Defender means the person employed by the BoardpursuanttoR.S.15:152.13. Workload. Workload means a public defender service provider’s caseload, includingappointedandotherwork,adjustedbyfactorssuchascasecomplexity,supportservices,andanattorney’s nonrepresentational duties.Non‐caseload factors also include the experience level ofthe public defense service provider, waits in courtrooms for judicial priority afforded private‐lawyercases, training functionsrequiredof senior lawyers to junior lawyers, travel timetoandfromjailsandprisonswhereclientsareincarcerated,timelinessandeaseofaccesstoincarceratedclients,andthenumberofnon‐Englishspeakingclients.Aworkloadisexcessivewhenitimpairsthe ability of a public defense service provider tomeet the ethical obligations imposed by theRulesofProfessionalConduct.TheworkloadofaDistrictisthesumofallpublicdefenderserviceproviders’ workloads in that District. The workload of a District is excessive when all non‐supervisorypublicdefenseserviceproviderswithinthatDistricthaveexcessiveworkloads.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).

§1705. ApplicabilityofSectionsA. Sections1707through1717shallapplywhenaDistrict is facingafiscalcrisisorexcessive

workload, or both. Section 1719 applieswhen one ormore individual public defender serviceprovidersarefacingexcessiveworkloads,buttheDistrictitselfisnot.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).

§1707. NoticeofImpendingFiscalCrisis,ExcessiveCaseload,orBothA. WhenaDistrictDefenderorBoardstaffprojectsthataDistrictwillexperienceafiscalcrisis

oranexcessiveworkload,orboth,duringthenexttwelvemonths,theDistrictDefenderorBoardstaff, as the case may be, shall give notice to the other within seven days of making suchprojection.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR


38:813(March2012).

§1709. DiscussionofAlternatives;ProposedServiceRestrictionPlanA. Ifthefiscalcrisisorexcessiveworkload,orboth,is/areexpectedtooccursixormoremonths

fromgivingorreceivingofthenoticespecifiedin§1707,thefollowingstepsshallbetaken:1. Withinforty‐fivedaysaftergivingorreceivingthenotice,theDistrictDefendershalldiscuss

withBoardstaffanyviablealternativestorestrictingpublicdefenseserviceswithintheDistrict.2. If theDistrictDefenderandBoardstaffareunabletoagreeuponanyviablealternativesto

restrictingpublicdefenseserviceswiththeDistrict,theDistrictDefendershall,withinsixtydaysaftereithergivingorreceivingthenotice,developaproposedwrittenplanforrestrictingservicesintheDistrict,includingstaffandoverheadreductionswherenecessary,andsubmittheproposedplantoBoardstaff.B. If the fiscal crisis or excessiveworkload, or both, is/are expected to occur less than six

months from giving or receiving of the notice specified in §1707, the following steps shall betaken:1. Within fifteen days after giving or receiving the notice, theDistrict Defender shall discuss

withBoardstaffanyviablealternativestorestrictingpublicdefenseserviceswithintheDistrict.2. If theDistrictDefenderandBoardstaffareunabletoagreeuponanyviablealternativesto

restrictingpublicdefenseserviceswiththeDistrict,theDistrictDefendershall,withinthirtydaysaftereithergivingorreceivingthenotice,developaproposedwrittenplanforrestrictingservicesintheDistrict,includingstaffandoverheadreductionswherenecessary,andsubmittheproposedplantoBoardstaff.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).

§1711. ComprehensiveandExpeditedSiteVisitsA. Ifthefiscalcrisisorexcessiveworkload,orboth,is/areexpectedtooccursixormoremonths

fromthegivingorreceivingofthenoticespecifiedin§1707andtheDistrictDefenderandBoardstaffareunabletoagreeuponanyviablealternativestorestrictingpublicdefenseserviceswiththeDistrict,thefollowingstepsshallbetaken:1. Within ninety days of receiving the District Defender's proposed service restriction plan,

Boardstaffshallconductacomprehensivesitevisit.Thepurposeofthecomprehensivesitevisitistoconfirmthatarestrictionofservicesisnecessaryandtoensurethattherestrictionofservicesis handled in amanner thatminimizes the adverse effects on the local criminal justice system,whileavoidingassumingcaseloadand/orworkloadlevelsthatthreatenqualityrepresentationofclientsor run counter to theRulesofProfessionalConduct. In conducting comprehensive sitevisits, Board staff should perform any and all such actions that Board staff deems necessary,including, but not limited to, requesting and reviewing documents, examining computers andcomputerized information, interviewing District employees and independent contractors, and


contactingother stakeholders in the local criminal justice system. If theBoard staff determinesthatservicesshouldberestrictedintheDistrict followingcompletionof thecomprehensivesitevisit, the District Defender and Board staff should consult with the Chief Judge and DistrictAttorneybeforefinalizingtheservicerestrictionplan.B. If the fiscal crisis or excessive workload, or both, is/are expected to occur less than six

monthsfromthegivingorreceivingofthenoticespecifiedin§1707andtheDistrictDefenderandBoardstaffareunabletoagreeuponanyviablealternativestorestrictingpublicdefenseserviceswiththeDistrict,thefollowingstepsshouldbetaken:1. Withinforty‐fivedaysofreceiptoftheDistrictDefender'sproposedservicerestrictionplan,

Board staff should conduct anexpedited site visit. Thepurposeof the expedited site visit is toconfirmthatarestrictionofservicesisnecessaryandtoensurethattherestrictionofservicesishandledinamannerthatminimizestheadverseeffectsonthelocalcriminaljusticesystem,whileavoidingassumingcaseloadand/orworkloadlevelsthatthreatenqualityrepresentationofclientsorruncounter to theRulesofProfessionalConduct. Inconducting expeditedsitevisits,Boardstaffmay perform any and all such actions theBoard staff deemsnecessary, including, but notlimited to, requesting and reviewing documents, examining computers and computerizedinformation, interviewingDistrictemployeesand independentcontractors,andcontactingotherstakeholders in the local criminal justice system. If the Board staff determines that servicesshould be restricted in theDistrict following completion of the expedited site visit, theDistrictDefender and Board staff should consult with the Chief Judge and District Attorney prior tofinalizingtheservicerestrictionplan.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).

§1713. FactorstobeConsideredinDevelopmentofaServiceRestrictionPlanA. RecognitionofDiversityofDistricts1. IndividualDistrictshavedifferentpublicdefenderservicedeliverymethods,fundinglevels,

caseloads,workloads and staff. As a result, service restrictionplans should be tailored to eachDistrict. InsomeDistricts, restrictingmisdemeanorrepresentationmaybe theappropriatestep,while in others,Districtsmayno longerbe able tohandle capital cases.However, to the extentpossible,allservicerestrictionplansshouldreflectthattheDistrictwillcontinuerepresentationofexistingclients.B. Non‐AttorneySupportStaff1.InpreparingthefinalservicerestrictionplanforaDistrict,theDistrictDefenderandBoard

staffshouldattempttopreservetheDistrict'ssupportstafftotheextentpossible.C. PublicDefenderServiceProviderConsiderations

1.Publicdefenderserviceproviders’workloadsmustbecontrolledsothatallmatterscanbehandled competently. If workloads prevent public defender service providers’ from providing


competent representation to existing clients, public defender serviceprovidersmustneitherbeallowednorrequiredtoacceptnewclients.2.Reasonablecommunicationsbetweenpublicdefenderserviceprovidersandtheirclientsarenecessaryforclientstoparticipateeffectivelyintheirrepresentation.3.Loyaltyandindependentjudgmentareessentialelementsinpublicdefenderserviceproviders’client relationships. Conflicts of interest can arise from the public defender service providers’responsibilitiestootherclients,formerclients,thirdpersonsorfromthepublicdefenderserviceproviders’own interest. Loyalty toclients is impairedwhenapublicdefenderserviceprovidercannotconsider,recommend,orcarryoutappropriatecoursesofactionforclientsbecauseofthepublicdefenderserviceproviders’otherresponsibilitiesorinterests.§1715. DeclinationofNewAppointments;OtherReliefA. If theDistrictDefenderandBoardstaff agree that the fiscal crisisorexcessiveworkload,orboth,isimminent,theDistrictDefenderandpublicdefenseserviceprovidersshallbegindecliningnewappointmentsatanagreedupontimepriortobreachingtheRulesofProfessionalConduct.B. If the court appoints the District Defender or one of the District’s public defense serviceprovidersfollowingdeclinationofappointmentsassetforthin§1715.A.,theDistrictDefenderandtheDistrict’spublicdefense serviceproviders shall seek continuances in those caseswhere thedefendant is not incarcerated. The District Defender and the District’s public defense serviceprovidersshallcontinuetoprovidelegalservicesforincarceratedclientsprovidedtheymaydosowithout breaching the Rules of Professional Conduct and after considering the severity of theoffense and the length of time the defendant has been in custody. If the District DefenderdeterminesthatlitigationpursuanttoStatev.Peart,621So.2d780(La.1993);Statev.Citizen,04‐KA‐1841 (La. 4/1/05), 898 So.2d 325 or other related litigation is necessary at this time, theDistrictDefenderisauthorizedtotakesuchactionaftergivingnoticetotheBoardandBoardstaff.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).

§1717. FinalizationofPlan;DisseminationA. If the fiscal crisis or excessive workload, or both, remains imminent at conclusion of the

Boardstaff’ssitevisit,theDistrictDefendershall,withinthirtydaysofconclusionofthesitevisit,submithisorherproposedwrittenfinalservicerestrictionplantoBoardstaff.B.Boardstaffshallhavesevendaysafterreceiptoftheproposedfinalservicerestrictionplanto

reviewandapprove theplanassubmittedorapprove theplanasmodifiedbyBoardstaff. TheplanbecomesfinalupontheDistrictDefender’sreceiptoftheBoardstaff’sapproval.IfBoardstafftakesnoactionontheproposedfinalservicesrestrictionplan,theplanisdeemedtobeapprovedassubmittedonthefirstbusinessdayfollowingtheexpirationoftheseventhday.C.AftertheplanhasbeenapprovedbyBoardstaff,theDistrictDefendershallgivenoticeofthe

plan, togetherwith a copyof theplan, to theCourt inaccordancewith§1703.A.9.b. and to the


StatePublicDefenderinaccordancewith§1703.A.9.a.D. Copies of the notice and the final service restriction plan also shall be sent by theDistrictDefendertotheChiefJusticeoftheLouisianaSupremeCourt,thePresidentoftheLouisianaStateBarAssociation,theChiefand/orAdministrativeJudgeofeachcourtintheDistrictinwhichpublicdefenderserviceprovidersdeliverlegalservicestoindigentpersonsincriminalproceedings,andtheSheriffandParishPresidentorequivalentheadofparishgovernment foreachparish in theDistrictinaccordancewith§1703.A.9.c.E. TheDistrict Defendermay seek assistance from the court,where appropriate, in recruitingmembersofthelocalprivatebartoassistintheprovisionofindigentrepresentation.F.NoticesunderthisSection1717shall includetheeffectivedateof theservicerestrictionandshouldbeprovidedassoonaspracticable.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).

§1719. ExcessiveWorkloadsofIndividualPublicDefenderServiceProvidersA. Apublicdefenderserviceprovider’sworkload, includingappointedandotherwork, shouldnever be so large as to interfere with the rendering of quality representation or result in thebreach of ethical obligations, and public defense service providers are obligated to declineappointmentsabovesuchlevels.B. If the District Defender becomes aware that one or more of the District’s public defenderservice providers’ workloads are, or will become, excessive, the District Defender shall takeappropriate action. Appropriate action includes, but is not limited to, transferring non‐representational responsibilities within the District, including managerial or supervisoryresponsibilities to others; transferring cases from one public defender service providers toanother;orauthorizingthepublicdefenderserviceproviderstorefusenewcases.C. If a public defense service provider believes that he or she has an excessiveworkload, thepublic defense service provider shall consultwith his or her supervisor and seek a solution bytransferring cases to a public defense service provider whose workload is not excessive or bytransferringnon‐representationalresponsibilities.Shouldthesupervisordisagreewiththepublicdefense service provider’s position or refuse to acknowledge the problem, the public defenseservice provider should continue to advanceup the chain of commandwithin theDistrict untileither relief is obtained or the public defense service provider has reached and requestedassistance or relief from the District Defender. If after appealing to his or her supervisor andDistrict Defenderwithout relief, the public defense service provider should appeal to the StatePublicDefenderforassistance.AUTHORITYNOTE: PromulgatedinaccordancewithR.S.15:148.HISTORICALNOTE: PromulgatedbytheOfficeoftheGovernor,PublicDefenderBoard,LR

38:813(March2012).

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixC

PILOTDISTRICTS45Ageneraloverviewofeachofthepilotdistricts,includingdemographics,publicdefensestaffing,andimpactsofrestrictionofservicesissummarizedbelow.NatchitochesParish,the10th JudicialDistrict,hadanestimatedpopulationof39,179onJuly1,201546andislocatedinthenorthwestportionofthestate(ruralarea).EastBatonRougeParish,the19thJudicialDistrict,hadanestimatedpopulationof446,753asofJuly 1, 2015.47 The East Baton Rouge Parish District Defender entered Restriction of Services(“ROS”) on March 1, 2015 and remains in ROS; as such it was already freezing positions,cutting/suspendingcontractsandmovingsomecounseltoparttimecontracts. InJanuary2016,theofficeemployedapproximately38FTEattorneys,whichwasreducedtoapproximately25FTEattorneysbySeptember30,2016.Theofficenolongerhandlescapitalcasesorconflictcases,andinstitutedawaitlist.The22nd JudicialDistrictDefenderOfficecoverstheParishesofSt.TammanyandWashingtonParishes, with estimated populations of 250,088 and 46,371 as of July 1, 2015, respectively.48TheseParishesconsistoftwodifferingdemographics,oneofwhichispopulousandaffluent,theother which is rural and poor. In January of 2016 the office employed approximately 14 FTEattorneys,whichwasreducedtoapproximately10FTEattorneysbySeptember30,2016.OrleansParish, the 41st Judicial District, had an estimated population of 389,617 as of July 1,2015.49TheOrleansPublicDefenderOfficeenteredarestrictionofservicesforthesecondtimeonDecember1,2015andremainsinROS.Theofficenolongerhandlescapitalcasesorconflictcases,andinstitutedawaitlist.

45PertheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoardstaff.46https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml47Id.48Id.49Id.

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixC

IMPACTSOFRESTRICTIONOFSERVICES50Asaresultofbeinginaperiodofrestrictionofservicesduringtheworkloadstudy,theEastBatonRouge and Orleans programs discharged certain attorneys and support staff which were notreplaced,aspresentedinthePublicDefenseStaffingAnalysissectionofthisreport. Accordingtothe LPDB, the reduction in attorneys and support staff resulted in attorneys performing anincreasedvolumeofadministrative tasksandhighercaseloads.Asa result, theLPDBstated thehigher case and workloads have created concurrent conflicts of interest for the attorneysaccepting new cases in that they are choosing which clients, existing or new, will receive theattorneys’limitedamountoftime.AccordingtotheLPDB,thesecircumstancesforceattorneystoacceptnewclientswhentheyhavepreexisting time constraints to adequately represent existing clients. As a result, attorneys areforcedtoimproperlyallocatetheirtimebetweenclients,inviolationofRule1.7oftheLouisianaRulesofProfessionalConduct. Rule1.7(ConflictofInterest:CurrentClients)statesinpertinentpart:

[A] lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrentconflictofinterest.Aconcurrentconflictofinterestexistsif:

(1) therepresentationofoneclientwillbedirectlyadversetoanotherclient;or

(2) thereisasignificantriskthattherepresentationofoneormoreclientswillbematerially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, aformerclientorathirdpersonorbyapersonalinterestofthelawyer.

...

50PertheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoardstaff.

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixD

DELPHIMETHODOLOGYTheDelphimethodwasintroducedin1962byresearchersattheRandCorporation.Themethodwas described as a “new” research technique utilized by the Air Force in the 1950s to gatherexpert opinion and generate a reliable consensus.51 As a methodological strategy, the Delphimethod proposed that a succession of surveys be given to a group of experts, with structuredfeedbackpresentedtotheexpertsateach intervalstage.ThesurveyingpracticesappliedbytheDelphimethodcouldbeinterviewsorquestionnairesthatfocusonsomefundamentalquestionofsignificancetothegroupofexpertsconvenedforfeedback.Thefeaturesofthismethodinclude“anonymity,iteration,controlledfeedback,andthestatisticalaggregationofgroupresponse.”52Attheonsetoftheprocess,participants inaDelphigrouparelargelyanonymousfromoneanother.Thepurposeofanonymityistoensurethatsolicitedexpertsarenotinfluencedbytheresponsesofotherparticipantsandthattheideaspresentedarejudgedon their ownmerit. This technique is believed to be conducive to the exercise of independentthought on the part of participating experts and to aid experts in forming well‐thought‐outopinions.Therelianceonexpertopinionasdataisbuiltonthepremisethatanexpertis“abletoselecttheneeded itemsofbackground information,determinethecharacterandextentof theirrelevance,and apply these insights to the formulation of the required personal probability judgments.”53Experts typically complete a questionnaire over multiple iterations with the goal of allowingparticipants to change their opinions and judgmentswhen presentedwith controlled feedbackregarding the opinions and judgments of their fellow participants. This controlled feedback isnormallypresentedasa statistical summationof thegroup’s responses, e.g., ameanormedian.The structured feedback at each successive iteration consists of “available data previouslyrequestedby…theexperts…,oroffactorsandconsiderationssuggestedaspotentiallyrelevantbyoneoranotherrespondent.”54

51NormanDalkey andOlafHelmer, AnExperimentalApplicationof theDelphiMethod to theUseofExperts, 1962,availableathttp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2009/RM727.1.pdf.52GeneRoweandGeorgeWright,TheDelphiTechniqueasaForecastingTool:IssuesandAnalysis,15INT’LJ.FORECASTING35354(1999)(hereafterRoweandWright,TheDelphiTechnique).

53OlafHelmer andNicholasRescer,On theEpistemologyof the InexactSciencesP‐151342 (TheRandCorporation1958),availableathttp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P1513.pdf.54NormanDalkeyandOlafHelmer, AnExperimentalApplicationof theDelphiMethod to theUseofExperts (1962),availableathttp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2009/RM727.1.pdf.


Thegoalofthefeedbackateachstageistoassistinlimitingmistakenbeliefsanexpertmayhaveon thequestionathandor to increase theirawarenessofother information theymaynothavepreviouslyconsidered.55Attheconclusionofthefinaliteration,thefinaliteration’smeanormedianresponseisusedasthemeasure of the group’s opinion.56 In theory, the number of iterations required of the Delphimethod can be unlimited until consensus among participants is achieved, however it has beenfoundthatthreetofouriterationsisusuallyallthatisrequiredtoreachconsensus.57 RoweandWright systematically reviewed studies that explored the effectiveness of the Delphi method.TheirfocuswasonhowwelltheDelphimethodworkedinproducingaconsensusofopinionsandjudgmentsandtoassesshowaccuratethoseopinionsandjudgmentswere.Overall, they found that themajorityof these evaluative studies showed support for theDelphimethodinreducingvariancesinopinionandjudgment,thusindicatingthatgreaterconsensushadbeenachieved.Asfortheconcernovertheaccuracyofthoseopinionsandjudgments,RoweandWright again found that themajority of studies provide compelling evidence in support of theDelphimethod.Compared toothermethodological techniquesutilized for similarpurposes, theDelphimethodwasfoundto“leadtoimprovedjudgmentsoverstaticizedgroupsandunstructuredinteractinggroups.”58Sinceitsintroduction,theDelphimethodhasbeenemployedacrossadiversearrayofindustries,such as health care, education, information systems, transportation, and engineering.59 Thepurpose of its use beyond forecasting has ranged from “program planning, needs assessment,policydetermination,andresourceutilization.”60Withinthelegalsystem,earlyexamplesofuseofthe Delphi method can be traced back a couple of decades. Examples of these attempts weresponsored by both the National Association of Court Management (“NACM”) and the NationalCenter for StateCourts (“NCSC”). These effortswereprincipally chargedwith assessing judicialandcourtsupportstaffneeds.61

55Id.56RoweandWright,TheDelphiTechnique,supranote52.57Chia‐ChienHsuandBrianA.Sandford,TheDelphiTechnique:MakingSenseofConsensus(2007)(hereafterHsuandSandford,TheDelphiTechnique),availableathttp://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf.58RoweandWright,TheDelphiTechnique,supranote52,at353‐54.59HaroldLinstoneandMurrayTuroff,TheDelphiMethod:TechniquesandApplications(2002);RoweandWright,TheDelphiTechnique,supranote52,at353‐54.60HsuandSandford,TheDelphiTechnique,supranote57.61See,e.g.,VictorFlangoandBrianOstrom,AssessingtheNeedforJudgesandCourtSupportStaff(NationalCenterforStateCourts1996).


Inthe2000’s,theNCSCstartedusingDelphitechniquesinaddressingthecaseloadandworkloadcrisisofindigentdefenseintheUnitedStates.Inarecentbook,LefsteincommentsontheuseoftheDelphimethod,noting:

“The technique is recommended when a problem does not lend itself to precisemeasurement and can benefit from collective judgments. This would seem to beprecisely the situation when a defense program seeks to determine how muchadditionaltime,onaverage,itslawyersneedtospendonawholerangeofactivitiesinvolvingdifferentkindsofcases.”62

TheDelphimethodhasbeenrecommendedasanecessarycomplementtotime‐basedstudiesthatseek to determine appropriate caseloads for defense lawyers.63 What the Delphi method isbelieved to offer is a method to adjust preliminary case weights based on time studies whileavoidingtheinstitutionalizationofpotentiallysub‐standardcurrentpractices.Pastworkloadstudies64werereviewedandassessedindevelopingthemethodologyadvancedinthisstudy,whichsoughttoquantifytheamountoftimeapublicdefendershouldexpecttospendonaparticulartaskinaparticularcasetypethroughtheapplicationoftheDelphiMethod.Asinprior studies, the Delphi methodology was used to provide an estimate of what workloadstandards shouldbe inorder forapublicdefender toprovide reasonable effectiveassistanceofcounsel. However, among other things, this study expands upon priorwork in this field that itfocusesonboth theamountof time that shouldbe spentona task, aswell ashowoftena taskshould be completed. Further the study expands on prior work in that it utilized the input ofprivatepracticedefensecounsel.

62NORMANLEFSTEIN,SECURINGREASONABLECASELOADS:ETHICSANDLAWOFPUBLICDEFENSE146(Am.BarAssoc.2011).63Id.at149.64See National Center for State Courts’ reports, available at http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Court‐Management/Workload‐and‐Resource‐Assessment/Resource‐Guide.aspx.

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixE

ROUNDONESAMPLE

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixE

ROUNDTWOSAMPLE

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixF

LOUISIANAPUBLICDEFENDERWORKLOADSTUDYCASETYPES

Case(Offense)Type DescriptionMisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance Misdemeanoroffenses

EnhanceableMisdemeanor Misdemeanoroffense,whichmaybeincreasedtoafelonywithadditionaloffenses

Low‐levelFelony Lowcomplexityoffenseswithasentencelessthan4.99years

Mid‐levelFelony

Lowtomediumcomplexityoffenseswithasentencebetween5yearsand9.99yearsorhighcomplexityoffenseswithasentenceoflessthan5years

High‐levelFelony Offenseswithasentencegreaterthan10yearsorhighcomplexityoffenseswithasentencebetween5yearsand9.99years

Felony‐LifeWithoutParole Highcomplexityoffenseswithalifesentencewithoutparole

JuvenileDelinquency

Alloffensetypesleviedagainstadefendantundertheageof17,excepthigh‐levelfelonieswhicharetransferredtoorotherwiseconductedinthecriminalcourtsystemdespitethejuvenileage‐statusofthedefendant


Statusoffenses(actionsthatconstituteanoffenseonlybecauseoftheageofthedefendant,suchastruancy,ungovernable,andrunaway)chargedagainstadefendantundertheageof18


Civilcasesinwhichthestateaccusesparentsofabuseorneglectofchildren,possiblyresultinginremovalofchildrenintofostercareorterminationofparentalrights

Revocation Offensesfoundedinthetechnicalorconstructiveviolationoftheconditionsofprobation

Appeals/Post‐ConvictionReview(PCR)

Rightofreviewfromjudgmentorrulingbytheproperappellatecourt/PCR‐petitionsfiledbypersonsincustodyaftersentence,seekingtohavetheirconvictionsandsentencessetaside

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixF

LOUISIANAPUBLICDEFENDERWORKLOADSTUDYCASETASKS

CaseTaskArea CaseTasks(InBold)andDescriptions

ClientCommunication ClientCommunication:Allclientcommunication(nototherwiseincludedinperformingthetasksbelow)

Discovery/Investigative

CollectingRecords:Orderingandobtainingrecords,transcripts,discoverymaterials,andothercaserelateddocuments

Interviews/FieldInvestigation:Caserelatedinvestigationactivities,includingviewingthesceneandphysicalevidence;interviewingandcanvassingforwitnesses;servingsubpoenas;takingphotos/videos;etc.

Experts:Locating,retaining,corresponding,consultingwith,andreviewingreportsofexpertsforthedefense

CasePreparation

LegalResearchandWriting:Researchinganddraftingofpleadings,briefs,etc.

Negotiations:Discussionswithaprosecutorinanefforttoresolveacase

CourtPreparation:Preparingfortrialorahearing(includesdefenseteammeetings,aswellastimespentpreppingfordirectexams,crossexams,andotherelementsoftrialsandcourthearings)

CasePreparation:Reviewing,analyzingandorganizingcase‐relatedmaterials/evidence;dictatingandeditingcase‐relatedmemos;defenseteammeetings(unlessrelatedtoacourtappearance,whichfallsunderCourtPreparation);documentingcasefile

Sentencing:Developingorcollectingevidencetobeusedatsentencing

CourtTime CourtTime:Incourtatatrial(benchorjury)orahearingofanykind

ClientCare

ClientCare:Workingwithpublicsafety,socialservicesdepartments,oroutsideagenciesonbehalfoftheclient;handlingmedical/family/otherissuesaffectingclientduringcase

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixG

DELPHIPANELMEMBERSTheDelphiPanelin‐personsurveywasconductedonApril26,2016.TheDelphiPanelsurveywasattendedbythe23luminaries listedbelow,comprisedofparticipantsaveraging29yearsof lawpracticewith12identifyingthemselvesasprivatepractitionersand11identifyingthemselvesaspublic defenders. As previously discussed, the Delphi Methodology is designed as an iterativesurveyprocess,thereforeonlytheluminarieswhocompletedeachsurveyroundwerepermittedtoadvancetothenextroundofsurveys.

FirstName LastNameLawPracticeClassification

Kyla Blanchard‐Romanach PublicDefender

Fred Crifasi PrivatePractitioner

Thomas Damico PrivatePractitioner

C.Jerome D'Aquila PublicDefender

Dwight Doskey PublicDefender

Carrie Ellis PublicDefender

Paul Fleming PublicDefender

Lester Gauthier PrivatePractitioner

Kendall Green PublicDefender

Stephen Haedicke PrivatePractitioner

Arthur Lemann PrivatePractitioner

John Lindner PrivatePractitioner

Thomas Lorenzi PrivatePractitioner

John McLindon PrivatePractitioner

Chris Murell PublicDefender

Alan Robert PublicDefender

Christie Smith PrivatePractitioner

William Sothern PrivatePractitioner

Richard Stricks PublicDefender

Tony Tillman PublicDefender

Caroline Tillman PrivatePractitioner

Robert Toale PrivatePractitioner

Richie Tompson PublicDefender


DELPHIPANELSURVEYPresentedbelowisanexcerptfromtheinstructionsprovidedtotheDelphiPanelparticipants.

Introduction

ThankyouforparticipatingintheLouisianaPublicDefenderWorkloadSurvey.Yourparticipationin this surveyprocesswill directly affect thequality of representation to thousandsof indigentcriminaldefendantsinLouisiana.The American Bar Association (ABA) and Postlethwaite and Netterville, APAC (P&N) areconducting a survey of Louisiana criminal defense experts, on behalf of the Louisiana PublicDefender Board (LAPD), to establish public defender workload standards. This study is beingfundedbytheLauraandJohnArnoldFoundation.ApanelofexpertsconsistingofMr.JamesBoren(BatonRouge,Louisiana),Mr.MarkCunningham(New Orleans, Louisiana), Mr. John DiGiulio (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), and Mr. Daniel Martiny(Metairie, Louisiana) has selected you to participate in this study as a luminary in the field ofLouisianacriminaldefense.ThestudyusestheDelphiMethod,amulti‐roundsurveydevelopedbytheRandCorporationandused in a rangeof industries andprofessions. The in‐personDelphiPanel Survey is the last ofthreeroundsofsurveysconductedbyABAandP&Nresearchteam.AbriefoverviewandinstructionsfortheDelphiPanelSurveyarepresentedinthesectionsbelow.

DelphiPanelSurveyOverview

Asone of theDelphi Panel Surveyparticipants, you and yourpeerswill complete an in‐personsurvey designed to identify a consensus conclusion of approximately howmuch time a lawyershould spend in different types of criminal cases to provide reasonably effective assistance ofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnorms.WeaskthatDelphiPanelparticipantsmaintainconfidentialityoftheDelphiPanelconclusions.Similar to the Round Two Survey, participants will be asked to rely on guidance from theABA/LPBDStandards,thesummaryresultsoftheRoundTwoSurveyincludingthetrimmedmeanand peer ranges of survey responses, the Delphi Panel’s collective expertise to determine aconsensusconclusionforeachsurveyquestion.


Standards

For your reference during the survey, information on the applicable standards and rules arediscussedbelow.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcernsregardingthestandardsreferencedbelow,pleasedonothesitatetodiscusswithyourDelphiPanelpeersandtheresearchteam.In answering the survey responses, you should rely on the ABA Criminal Standards related toDefense Function, the Louisiana Public Defender Board Standards, and Louisiana Rules ofProfessionalConduct,aswellasyourownknowledgeandexperience.Today,moststate‐levelcriminalcasesareresolvedwithoutatrial.Forinstance,while94percentofstate‐levelconvictionsaretheresultofaguiltyplea(seeMissouriv.Frye,132S.Ct.1399,1407(2012)), experts answering this survey should recall ABA Criminal Justice Standards related toDefenseFunction4‐6.1(b):

“(b) In every criminal matter, defense counsel should consider the individualcircumstances of the case and of the client, and should not recommend to a clientacceptanceofadispositionofferunlessanduntilappropriateinvestigationandstudyofthematterhasbeencompleted.Suchstudyshouldincludediscussionwiththeclientandananalysisofrelevantlaw,theprosecution’sevidence,andpotentialdispositionsandrelevantcollateralconsequences. Defensecounselshouldadviseagainstaguiltyplea at the first appearance, unless, after discussion with the client, a speedydispositionisclearlyintheclient’sbestinterest.”

In reviewing the Louisiana Public Defender Standards, you should pay particular attention toLPDB Trial Court Performance Standards, LPDB Trial Court Performance Standards for CINCRepresentation, and LPDB Trial Court Performance Standards for Delinquency Representation.Forexample,asstatedinanexcerptfromSection707‐GeneralDutiesofDefenseCounseloftheLPDBTrialCourtPerformanceStandards:

“Counsel has an obligation tomake sure that counsel has available sufficient time,resources,knowledgeandexperiencetooffereffectiverepresentationtoadefendantinaparticularmatter.”

InreviewingtheLouisianaRulesofProfessionalConduct,youshouldpayparticularattentiontoRules1.1(Competence)and1.3(Diligence),includingtheCommentstothoseRules.Forexample,Rule1.3‐Comment2:

“A lawyer's work load must be controlled so that each matter can be handledcompetently”.


DelphiPanelSurveyInstructions

Facilitatedby the research team,DelphiPanel participants are asked todetermine a consensusconclusion for each survey question using guidance from the ABA and LPBD standards, thesummary results of theRoundTwo Survey, and theDelphi Panel’s collective expertise. For thepurposesoftheDelphiPanelSurvey,theresearchteamhasselectedacollectivevoteof67percenttorepresenttheconsensusconclusionforeachquestion.Similar toprevious surveys, for eachof theelevenCaseTasks (e.g., ClientCommunication, etc.)consideredinthestudy,theluminariesarerequestedtoanswerthefollowingtwoquestionsaboutelevendifferentCaseTypes(e.g.,high‐levelfelony,etc.):

A. Inwhatpercentageof(thisCaseType)shouldeachCaseTaskbeperformed?B. For(thisCaseType),whentheCaseTasksareperformed,howmuchtime(inminutes)is

requiredtoperformeachCaseTaskwithreasonablyeffectiveassistanceofcounselpursuanttoprevailingprofessionalnorms?

AnonymousVoting

TofacilitatetheDelphiPanelSurvey,theparticipantswillanonymouslyvoteoneachofthesurveyquestionsviathePollEverywhereapplication.Foryourconvenience,P&Nhassuppliedandsetuplaptop computers to access the survey voting application. If you experience any technicaldifficulties,pleasedonothesitatetoaskaresearchteammemberforassistance.Using the guidance referenced above and the Delphi Panel’s collective expertise, the surveyparticipantswillbeasked tovoteanonymouslyoneachquestion. Ingeneral,eachquestionwillhavethefollowingstandardvotingoptions:

C. Yes,Iagreewiththepeermean.D. No,thenumberorpercentageshouldbelower.E. No,thenumberorpercentageshouldbehigher.

If a consensus (67% agreement) is not reached on the first voting attempt, the percentageperformedorminutesrequiredtoperformtheCaseTaskwillbeadjustedaccordingtothepollingresults and general consensus of the Delphi Panel’s discussion, then voted on again until aconsensuscanbereached.

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixH

ANNUALWORKLOADANALYSISAnannualestimateofLouisiana’spublicdefenseworkloadisacriticalcomponentoftheLouisianaProject. As previously discussed, this study analyzed all new public defense cases filed fromJanuary1,2013throughOctober31,2016.Basedonouranalysisofthecriminalcasedata,theLPDBrepresentedanaverageof156,408newcriminal casesperyear from2013 through2016.Aspresented inExhibit#1.1, casevolumebyCase Type is stable over the period, albeit slightly decreasing. This decrease in total cases isprimarilyattributabletoadeclineinnewMisdemeanorsorCityParishOrdinancecasesperyear.Asof2016,theLPDBrepresentedanestimatedcaseloadof150,473newcriminalcases,butalso,represented an additional 121,370 open cases from prior years, totaling 271,843 open casesduringtheperiod.65Ananalysisofhistoric caseduration forallnewcases filedduring theanalysisperiod, revealedapproximately 55 percent of new cases are completedwithin the same calendar year inwhichtheyarefiled.Duringthesecondcalendaryear,another25percentofthe‘carryover’casesfiledinthe prior year are completed, resulting in the completion of a total of 80 percent of the caseswithinthefirstorsecondcalendaryears.Duringthethirdcalendaryear,another5percentofthe‘carryover’casesfiledintheprioryeararecompleted,resultinginthecompletionofatotalof85percentofthecaseswithinthefirst,second,orthirdcalendaryears.Duetodatalimitations,thedurationoftheremaining15percentofcases isunknown.Basedonthecasedataprovided, theannual case completion trends were consistent for each period. Based on the analysis herein,Louisianapublicdefenderworkloadsonopencases includenewcases fromthecurrentyear, inaddition to ‘carryover’ cases fromprioryears.Thisanalysis layeredestimatedcasescompletedannually, which includes ‘carry over’ cases from prior years completed, as an estimate annualpublic defense workload.66 In applying this methodology, the following key assumptions werenecessarytoestimateannualpublicdefenseworkload:

consistentannualnewcasevolumeandcomposition, consistentannualcasecompletionrates,and all‘carryover’casesarecompletednolaterthanthefourthcalendaryear.

65CasemanagementdataavailabletobeanalyzedinthisstudywaslimitedtocasesfiledandclosedbetweenJanuary1,2013andOctober31, 2016, therefore cases thatwereopened fromtheperiodprior to January1,2013arenotincludedinthisstudy.66CasemanagementdataavailabletobeanalyzedinthisstudywaslimitedtocasesfiledandclosedbetweenJanuary1,2013andOctober31,2016.Therefore,thesamplesizeperiodwasinsufficienttodeterminecasedurationofnewcasesbyCaseType.Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,certainassumptionswerenecessarytoestimateannualpublicdefenderworkloadswithinreasonablecertainty.

TheLouisianaProjectAppendixH

Applyingtheassumptionsandanalysisabove,theestimatedvolumeofcasescompletedannuallyis equal to the total annual new cases filed. For thepurposes of this report, Louisiana’s annualpublic defenseworkload is estimated to be 150,473 cases per year (based on annualized 2016newcasesfiled).

Exhibits

TheLouisianaProject Exhibit#1.1LouisianaPublicDefenseCasesperYear[1]

CaseType[2] 2013 2014 2015 YTDOctober2016 Annualized2016Capital 107 88 97 90 108 ChildinNeedofCare(CINC)* 6,799 8,242 8,689 6,273 7,528 EnhanceableMisdemeanor* 33,785 34,768 36,507 30,717 36,860 Felony‐LifeWithoutParole* 547 506 469 479 575 FineOnly 1,009 1,072 952 1,146 1,375 FamilesinNeedofService(FINS)* 1,765 1,591 1,853 1,447 1,736 High‐levelFelony* 17,692 17,014 16,021 13,801 16,561 JuvenileDelinquency* 10,259 9,224 9,336 7,521 9,025 Low‐levelFelony* 18,532 18,197 19,420 16,868 20,242 Mid‐levelFelony* 19,122 19,832 20,029 17,524 21,029 Misdemeanor* 44,887 37,852 34,549 23,129 27,755 Other 1,877 1,711 1,928 1,475 1,770 Revocation* 6,169 6,994 5,669 4,924 5,909 TotalNewCasesPerYear 162,550 157,091 155,519 125,394 150,473 TotalNewDelphiCasesPerYear(*) 159,557 154,220 152,542 122,683 147,220

CaseType[2] 2013 2014 2015 YTDOctober2016 Annualized2016Capital 25 23 16 9 11 ChildinNeedofCare(CINC)* 630 2,448 2,801 1,909 2,291 EnhanceableMisdemeanor* 7,781 8,948 8,975 6,479 7,775 Felony‐LifeWithoutParole* 162 143 144 140 168 FineOnly 87 184 110 54 65 FamilesinNeedofService(FINS)* 111 152 95 136 163 High‐levelFelony* 3,833 3,730 3,273 2,796 3,355 JuvenileDelinquency* 1,645 1,331 1,636 1,280 1,536 Low‐levelFelony* 3,659 3,518 3,472 2,859 3,431 Mid‐levelFelony* 3,165 3,516 3,270 2,829 3,395 Misdemeanor* 13,562 9,698 7,970 5,910 7,092 Other 948 952 660 470 564 Revocation* 3,363 3,941 3,119 2,858 3,430 TotalNewCasesPerYear 38,971 38,584 35,541 27,729 33,275 TotalNewDelphiCasesPerYear(*) 37,911 37,425 34,755 27,196 32,636

[1]PertheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoard'scasemanagementsystem.[2]Anasterisk(*)indicatesCaseTypesincludedintheDelphiworkloadstudy.

StatewideNewCasesPerYearbyCaseType

PilotDistrictsNewCasesPerYearbyCaseType

TheLouisianaProject Exhibit#1.2SummaryofAttorneyandSupportStaffbyYear[1]

StaffingType 2014 2015 2016 AverageAttorneysFull‐timeEquivalentAttorneys(AllDistricts) 403 391 363 386Full‐timeEquivalentAttorneys(PilotDistricts) 127 121 104 117

SupportStaffFull‐timeEquivalentSupportStaff(AllDistricts) 171 178 168 172Full‐timeEquivalentSupportStaff(PilotDistricts) 68 81 70 73

PilotDistrictStaffasPercentageofAllDistrictsFull‐timeEquivalentAttorneys(PilotDistricts) 32% 31% 29% 30%Full‐timeEquivalentSupportStaff(PilotDistricts) 40% 46% 42% 42%

[1]PertheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoard'scompensationreports.

TheLouisianaProject Exhibit#1.3CasesinRestrictionofServicesbyYear[1]

CaseType[2] 2013 2014 2015 YTDOctober2016 Annualized2016ChildinNeedofCare(CINC)* ‐ ‐ 1 2 2EnhanceableMisdemeanor* 59 120 238 181 217Felony‐LifeWithoutParole* 2 4 8 5 6FineOnly ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1High‐levelFelony* 46 116 251 179 215Low‐levelFelony* 60 106 315 214 257Mid‐levelFelony* 82 122 353 242 290Misdemeanor* 37 51 53 42 50Other 1 1 7 7 8Revocation* ‐ ‐ 2 8 10TotalNewCasesPerYear 287 520 1,228 881 1,057TotalNewDelphiCasesPerYear(*) 286 519 1,221 873 1,048

CaseType[2] 2013 2014 2015 YTDOctober2016 Annualized2016ChildinNeedofCare(CINC)* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐EnhanceableMisdemeanor* 1 1 6 10 12Felony‐LifeWithoutParole* 2 2 4 5 6FineOnly ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐High‐levelFelony* 9 13 39 58 70Low‐levelFelony* 4 10 14 19 23Mid‐levelFelony* 7 12 14 17 20Misdemeanor* ‐ ‐ 1 8 10Other ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 5Revocation* ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1TotalNewCasesPerYear 23 38 78 122 146TotalNewDelphiCasesPerYear(*) 23 38 78 118 142

[1]PertheLouisianaPublicDefenderBoard'scasemanagementsystem.NewCasesaretrackedbydateopen(notdateplacedinrestrictionofservices).[2]Anasterisk(*)indicatesCaseTypesincludedintheDelphiworkloadstudy.

PilotDistrictsCasesinRestrictionofServices

StatewideCasesinRestrictionofServices

TheLouisianaProject Exhibit#2.1AnalysisoftheDelphiSurveySummaryofResults

CaseType MinutesPerCase HoursPerCaseMisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance 476.65 7.94EnhanceableMisdemeanor 723.30 12.06Low‐levelFelony 1319.50 21.99Mid‐levelFelony 2466.30 41.11High‐levelFelony 4187.60 69.79Felony‐LifeWithoutParole 12040.00 200.67JuvenileDelinquency 1187.00 19.78FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS) 579.60 9.66ChildinNeedofCare(CINC) 1505.00 25.08Revocation 508.00 8.47

DelphiPanelResultsTotals

TheLouisianaProject Exhibit#2.2AnalysisoftheDelphiSurveyResults

MinutesPerCase PercentagePerformed Total

ClientCommunication 75 100% 75.00CollectingRecords 30 100% 30.00Interviews/FieldInvestigation 62 35% 21.70Experts 60 5% 3.00LegalResearchandWriting 90 40% 36.00Negotiations 20 100% 20.00CourtPreparation 70 100% 70.00CasePreparation 60 100% 60.00Sentencing 30 70% 21.00CourtTime 105 99% 103.95ClientCare 40 90% 36.00TotalMinutesperCase 476.65TotalHoursperCase 7.94




MisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance

DelphiPanelResults

DelphiPanelResults



ClientCommunication 180 100% 180.00CollectingRecords 60 100% 60.00Interviews/FieldInvestigation 120 70% 84.00Experts 120 25% 30.00LegalResearchandWriting 150 100% 150.00Negotiations 90 100% 90.00CourtPreparation 240 100% 240.00CasePreparation 180 100% 180.00Sentencing 80 95% 76.00CourtTime 150 99% 148.50ClientCare 90 90% 81.00TotalMinutesperCase 1,319.50TotalHoursperCase 21.99



Low‐levelFelony

Mid‐levelFelony

DelphiPanelResults

DelphiPanelResults





ClientCommunication 2,500 100% 2,500.00CollectingRecords 600 100% 600.00Interviews/FieldInvestigation 900 100% 900.00Experts 600 95% 570.00LegalResearchandWriting 1,200 100% 1,200.00Negotiations 300 100% 300.00CourtPreparation 1,600 100% 1,600.00CasePreparation 1,800 100% 1,800.00Sentencing 240 100% 240.00CourtTime 2,000 100% 2,000.00ClientCare 330 100% 330.00TotalMinutesperCase 12,040.00TotalHoursperCase 200.67

High‐levelFelony


DelphiPanelResults

DelphiPanelResults






JuvenileDelinquency


DelphiPanelResults

DelphiPanelResults






DelphiPanelResults


Revocation

DelphiPanelResults


7.94 12.0621.99

41.11

69.79

200.67

19.789.66

25.08

8.47

0

50

100

150

200

250

MisdemeanororCityParish

Ordinance


Low‐levelFelony

Mid‐levelFelony

High‐levelFelony


JuvenileDelinquency

FamiliesinNeedofService

(FINS)


Revocation

HoursPerCase

DelphiPanelResultsHoursPerCaseType

TheLouisianaProject Exhibit#3DelphiWorkloadAnalysis

DelphiPanelResults WorkloadAnalysisCaseType EstimatedCases[1] HoursPerCase[2] HoursPerCaseTypeMisdemeanororCityParishOrdinance 27,755 7.94 220,490EnhanceableMisdemeanor 36,860 12.06 444,347Low‐levelFelony 20,242 21.99 445,155Mid‐levelFelony 21,029 41.11 864,397High‐levelFelony 16,561 69.79 1,155,847Felony‐LifeWithoutParole 575 200.67 115,383JuvenileDelinquency 9,025 19.78 178,545FamiliesinNeedofService(FINS) 1,736 9.66 16,770ChildinNeedofCare(CINC) 7,528 25.08 188,827Revocation 5,909 8.47 50,030

TotalNewDelphiCasesPerYear 147,220 3,679,792

EstimatedFTEAttorneys[3] 1,769

[1]Basedonannualized2016newcasesperyear(see Exhibit#1.1).[2]PertheDelphisurveysummaryresults(see Exhibit#2.1).

StatewideNewCasesPerYearbyCaseType

[3]FTEattorneysweredeterminedbydividingthetotalhoursworkedby2080(52weeks@40hoursperweek).Therefore,thiscalculationassumesallhoursareallocatedtotherepresentationofannualworkload,withoutconsiderationforcontinuinglegaleducationrequirements,administrativetasks,vacation,etc.

The Louisiana Projectlpdb.la.gov/Supporting Practitioners/Standards/txtfiles... · 2017-02-17 ·...

Documents

Transcript of The Louisiana Projectlpdb.la.gov/Supporting Practitioners/Standards/txtfiles... · 2017-02-17 ·...