Court hears PD-11's caseload arguments.

The Florida Legislature funds the public defenders' offices, but underfunding combined with crushing caseloads at the 11th Circuit Public Defender's Office climaxed into a constitutional crisis of statewide ramifications left for the Florida Supreme Court to solve.

"The heart of the matter is underfunding by the Legislature, correct? That's the gist of it?" asked Justice Ricky Polston.

"That certainly is a factor," answered Parker Thomson, of Miami's Hogan Lovells, representing PD11 pro bono, noting a 12.9 percent reduction in the public defenders' budget when they sought relief in 2008. But, he added, there is also a constitutional problem under both the state and federal constitutions when caseloads rise to such a level that public defenders can't effectively represent their clients.

Justice Polston kept drilling: "What's the remedy? What is the appropriate procedural vehicle in order to address that problem?"

Clashing views on the court's role in a possible remedy were aired during oral arguments June 7.

Thomson argued the high court should uphold the trial judge's decision that granted some relief to their plea for help. The case focused on chronic, systemic budget shortfalls that have crippled the public defenders' ability to not only abide by their ethical code, but to constitutionally carry out their duty to effectively represent their clients. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, Stanford Blake, 11th Circuit administrative judge of the criminal division, said caseloads were excessive under any standard and granted partial relief, ruling PD-11 could stop taking new third-degree felony cases beginning September 15, 2008, for 60 days. Then, Judge Blake would closely monitor the situation, requiring weekly status reports, and hold another hearing. But the process never proceeded that far, because his decision was appealed. Now, four years later, a new evidentiary hearing would be needed for current caseload numbers, Justice Barbara Pariente noted.

But Assistant Attorney General Louis Hubener III argued the Third District Court of Appeal decision should be upheld. The May 13, 2009, per curiam opinion by Judges Frank Shepherd, Angel Cortinas, and Vance Salter held that public defenders can't decline cases en masse. "Only after an assistant public defender proves prejudice or conflict, separate from excessive caseload, may that attorney withdraw from a particular case." The office-wide solution to the problem, the Third DCA said, "lies with the Legislature or the internal administration of PD-11, not with...