|7:30 – 8:00 a.m.||Breakfast
|8:00 – 8:15 a.m.||Welcome – Lisa Wood, Chair of SCLAID, Steve Hanlon, Chair of Indigent Defense Advisory Group, Jerry Cox (NACDL President)
|8:15 – 9:15 a.m.||
50th Anniversary of Criminal Justice Act
To commemorate the passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, this session is part of a yearlong discussion of this critical law. Participants will learn the background and historical underpinnings of the CJA, which became law on August 20, 1964, providing for compensated counsel for indigent criminal defendants in the nation's federal courts. Additional topics will include the funding cuts brought on by sequestration and the government shut–down, which further eroded access to this vital constitutional right. Panelists will also discuss how bar associations and private lawyers can contribute to access to justice for all.
|9:15 – 10:15 a.m.||
State Bar Involvement: the Washington Experience
Excessive caseloads plague public defenders across the country. This session will describe a 31 year history in Washington State in which defender and bar leaders worked together to develop and implement caseload limits, using a combination of bar-endorsed standards, individual appellate decisions, systemic litigation, education, state and local legislation, and the development and implementation of a court rule requiring defenders to certify that they comply with standards. The speakers include the executive director of the Washington State Bar Association, the former chair of the bar's Council on Public Defense and the founding president of the Washington Defender Association.
|10:15 – 10:30 a.m.||Break|
|10:30 – 11:45 a.m.||
Litigation, Acceptance, and the Culture of Public Defense
When the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 06-441 in 2006 on excessive workloads in public defense, some persons expected there to be a litigation explosion in which defense programs challenged their extremely high caseloads. Although several important new cases were filed after the ABA's ethics opinion, court challenges have been relatively few and today there are almost no pending lawsuits across the country protesting outlandish caseloads. Meanwhile, the duty of defense counsel is clear: to act as an advocate and to subject the prosecution's case to "meaningful adversarial testing," as the Supreme Court stated in 1984 in Cronic v. United States. During this program, current indigent defense litigation will be discussed and whether defense programs are fulfilling their "adversarial testing" role or simply facilitating systems of plea bargaining. Participants also will explore whether a dangerous culture has developed in which the duty of counsel as zealous advocates has been eroded by circumstances beyond the control of defense providers. Additional subjects will include prosecution practices of "exploding plea offers" and asking that defendants waive claims of possible ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct as part of negotiated plea agreements.
|12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.||
Luncheon Keynote Speaker
|1:15 – 2:45 p.m.||
Case–weighting Studies: Experiences in Missouri, Texas, Washington
As defenders and their advocates struggle to achieve reasonable caseloads, assessing appropriate workloads is critically important. This session will discuss three different case-weighting approaches that have been developed, one in Missouri following litigation, one in Washington focused on misdemeanor cases in conjunction with the implementation of a court rule regarding caseload limits, and one in Texas by the state Indigent Defense Commission.
|2:45 – 3:00 p.m.||Break|
|3:00 – 4:30 p.m.||
Wrongful Convictions: How Effective Assistance Would Have Helped
Two experienced post-conviction lawyers will discuss exoneration cases in which additional defense resources could have made a difference in the outcome of the original trial.
|4:30 – 5:00 p.m.||Wrap Up – Q&A|
Limited scholarships are available for this program. View more information about scholarships.
The ABA directly applies for and ordinarily receives CLE credit for ABA programs in AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, GA, GU, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MN, MS, MO, MT, NM, NV, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, VI, WA, WI, and WV. These states sometimes do not approve a program for credit before the program occurs. This transitional program is approved for both newly admitted and experienced attorneys in NY. For more information about CLE accreditation in your state, visit http://www.americanbar.org/publications_cle/mandatory_cle.html