Tackling the defense lawyer shortage (A non-update)

Listen to this article

One year ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced the creation of an “Attorney Retention and Recruitment Committee” to, according to the announcement, “consider the shortage of lawyers representing criminal defendants.”

The announcement quoted Kenosha County Judge Jason Rossell, the chair of the Committee of Chief Judges, as saying, “The delays caused by the [lawyer] shortage cause problems throughout the system, including delays in trials, lengthy pretrial incarceration, losing treatment options, and delayed closure for victims and witnesses.”

Judge Rossell was, of course, correct. This is a significant problem.

So, I decided to draw attention to it, by writing an article that might assist the committee with some hard data. My column, “Tackling the Defense Lawyer Shortage, Kim Wexler Style,” reported on a random seven-day period in Milwaukee County preliminary hearing court. During that time, 33 preliminary hearings were conducted; 28 defendants waived the hearing; and 146 cases were adjourned due to no lawyer having been appointed by the State Public Defender’s Office in time for the hearing. For many of those cases, a witness was subpoenaed and an officer had to come to court (often collecting a minimum of two hours of overtime) — only to be released when the hearing was adjourned.

Unfortunately, one year later, the situation hasn’t improved.

In one recent morning in Milwaukee, for example, 16 of the scheduled 24 cases were adjourned due to a lawyer not being timely appointed. Only one-third of the cases made some headway.

Meanwhile, the committee has shown no signs of life. In fact, the “Attorney Retention and Recruitment Committee” can’t even be found on the Court’s website — even under its “Programs and Initiatives” tab, which lists their “programs designed to improve the effectiveness of the court system.” One would think this committee might fit under that description.

In contacting the Court, I received responses that failed to indicate either any knowledge of this committee or what, if anything, it’s doing. Not a sign of progress!

Think the Court’s workload might be responsible for them ignoring this critically important issue? Wrong. As pointed out in a recent article in this publication, “[O]ne big change in the court during the past two years is the number of cases heard by the justices. From the 2007-08 term to 2022-23 term, the court took on a consistent caseload of 40 to 60 cases per year. In the 2023-24 term, the justices decided just 14 cases. … For the 2024-25 docket, 24 cases are on the docket.”

Meanwhile, cases continue to be adjourned at an alarming rate. The lack of available appointed attorneys adds a significant level of inefficiency (meaning, of course, costs), to an already inefficient system.

Here’s a suggestion:  Maybe the Court should use its extra time to address an issue of high importance.

Where is Elon Musk when we need him?