At a time of fiscal woes, it is important to ensure our constitutional rights are not sacrificed in a careless effort to balance local government budgets.

A recent $3 million jury verdict against a former Grant County public defender shows the danger. The public defender was loaded up with over 500 cases but had no investigator or social worker. How could he perform effectively with the caseload he negotiated with the county? No way.

The federal court verdict found he had violated the civil rights of an innocent man who languished in jail. There was a court-appointed attorney, but not one who gave him "effective" representation at public expense, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel secured to all of us by the U.S. Constitution.

Although this is a national problem, here in Washington it is particularly acute since our state constitution in Article I, Section I, plainly states it is the very purpose of our government to "protect and maintain individual rights." When judges appoint lawyers who can't get the job done, the fundamental purpose of our government is defeated.

Unfortunately our Supreme Court has set no standards to guide the trial court in making these appointments other than he or she be a lawyer. I have proposed a new rule to change that.

Essentially the rule change to CrR 3.1, CrRLJ 3.1, and JuCR 9.2 would set standards that a lawyer must meet before he or she is appointed to represent an indigent defendant. These standards have been developed by the Washington State Bar Association to set maximum caseloads, minimum support staff, minimum compensation, and experience as well as other standards to ensure the appointed lawyer has the time and resources to get the job done. These standards, like our individual rights, should be nonnegotiable.

Some cities and counties object that it will take more money to get the job done right. Of course they are correct, assuming prosecutors file the same number of cases as before. King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg has suggested fewer cases be filed, or at least at different levels of the court. For example under his proposal, some felonies would be filed as misdemeanors, some of which might require less effort by defense counsel. However, this is not always true.

In this situation, just as all other budgetary expenditures, local and state government authorities must set their own priorities. Under the proposed rules, however, trial courts will simply not appoint lawyers out of compliance with the guidelines who run the risk of disserving their clients because they are overworked and do not have the necessary financial resources. This gets the judiciary out of the business of facilitating the appointment of lawyers who cannot get the job done—and the malpractice actions which surely follow.

The Supreme Court has posted the proposed rules online and invites all citizens to comment on them before April 30. They may be accessed at www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposed under the link "January 2009 — Proposed Rules Published for Comment." Comments may be e-mailed to Camilla.Faulk@courts.wa.gov.

I think this would be a change for the better. What do you think?

Sanders is a justice of the Washington Supreme Court.