NCJ Number
92221
Date Published
1981
Length
65 pages
Annotation
This comparative analysis of the relationships with court personnel developed by an experimental public defender program and the currently used judicare mode (private attorneys paid from public funds) in British Columbia found that communications were better under the public defender system, and public defenders were more accessible for court use.
Abstract
The evaluation involved a comparison of public defense counsel cases with cases handled by judicare counsel in the Burnaby, New Westminster, and Vancouver courts. It was generally felt by judges and prosecutors that the use of public defense attorneys had improved the quality of representation for legal aid clients. Prosecutors particularly felt that public defense attorneys made their job easier. Both prosecutors and judges felt free to call upon public defenders to perform 'on-the-spot' legal services. Court personnel viewed them as part of the court system, with their general availability being a major strength of the public defender system. Public defenders felt that the Crown was willing to give them good 'deals' for their clients, generally better than those given clients of judicare counsel. Crown, defense, and judges all believed that this improved communication among the major case personnel. The accessibility of public defenders to the court, although liked by the prosecutors and judges, was not uniformly liked by public defenders. If public defense counsel is to remain independent, ways must be found to limit their accessibility for general, non-duty counsel, court representation services. Under the current arrangements, public defense counsel are likely to 'burn out' rapidly. For other reports from this comparative analysis, see NCJ 92216-17 and 92222.