Standard:

The plan for public defense services should establish a procedure for systematic monitoring and evaluation of attorney performance based upon publicized criteria. Supervision and evaluation efforts should include review of time and caseload records, review and inspection of transcripts, in-court observations, and periodic conferences.

Performance evaluations made by a supervising attorney should be supplemented by comments from judges, prosecutors, other defense lawyers and clients. Attorneys should be evaluated on their skill and effectiveness as criminal lawyers or as dependency or civil commitment advocates.

Related Standards:

National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Guidelines for Negotiating and Awarding Indigent Defense Contracts, 1984, Standard III-16.

National Study Commission on Defense Services, Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, 1976, Recommendations 5.4 and 5.5.

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force on Courts, 1973, Standard 13.9.

Commentary:

Regular performance evaluations are important to assure the highest quality of public defender services and to give timely notice to attorneys whose performance can be improved.

Public defense attorneys, by the very necessity of protecting those charged with crime, may be unpopular in the eyes of the police or courts in the exact proportion to their diligence in protecting clients' rights. For this reason, the evaluation of attorneys is most appropriately made by a supervising attorney with full understanding of the constitutional role played by defense counsel in the justice system. Comments from a range of court personnel and professional colleagues who have seen the attorney in action should supplement regular review.

Many contracting authorities do not now provide for monitoring of the fulfillment of contractual responsibilities. In some jurisdictions, payment is made to public defense attorneys without even requiring attorneys to report the number of cases accepted or closed during that period. Contracting authorities should become familiar with the elements which constitute effective defense representation and should systematically review programs to determine whether public funds are being usefully spent.