PDMC Lawsuit to Protect Constitutional Rights in Public Defense
December 8, 2025
Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
November 14, 2025
Judge Blocks Unconstitutional Public Defense Contract
Ruling today in Shannon Wilson v. Oregon Public Defense Commission protects constitutional right to effective representation
OREGON CITY, Ore.—Presiding Judge Wetzel today issued a preliminary injunction that removed a provision from Oregon’s public defense contract, finding that the provision likely violates the Oregon Constitution because it penalizes public defenders for refusing to take cases that they believe are beyond what they are capable of handling.
“Today, the court fulfilled its core responsibility of ensuring that our criminal courts are fair, equitable and constitutional. It ruled that no one, particularly the state, can force a public defender to take on more cases than they can ethically handle,” said Joshua Krumholz, lead counsel for the plaintiff, Marion County Public Defenders (“PDMC”).
Krumholz argued in the court today that the state’s attempt to force PDMC’s attorneys to comply with an outdated and discredited caseload standard violated the Oregon Constitution and the ethical rules that all lawyers must follow. He also told the court that Southwestern Oregon Public Defender Services (SWOPDS)—serving Coos County—would be joining the lawsuit. Krumholz is a partner at the international law firm of Holland & Knight, and has significant experience representing public defenders carrying excessive workloads.
“Everyone in the system knows that ethical representation cannot happen under the case quotas that the state requires,” Krumholz said. “It leaves public defenders with impossible choices, forcing them to choose between their ethical and constitutional duties and complying with the contract. The state has a duty to uphold the constitutional rights of all Oregonians and deliver fair and equal justice in its courts. This contract does not do that.”
“Forcing public defenders to be ‘attorneys on paper only’ is unfair to the people they represent," said Shannon Wilson, executive director of PDMC. "The state is trying to fast track low-income Oregonians through legal proceedings without meaningful representation. Today, a judge agreed that we can’t be forced to sign away our ethical obligations to our clients.”
Under the state’s new contract with public defenders, a new quota system was instituted in October, mandating that they meet caseload quotas based on discredited caseload standards developed more than 50 years ago. The new contract effectively limited how much time public defenders can spend on a given case, for instance allowing just 5.26 hours on average for a misdemeanor. In contrast, updated national standards allow for 14 to 22 hours on average, depending on the type of misdemeanor.
Despite the longstanding backlog of unrepresented people in Marion County, the Oregon Public Defense Commission also eliminated funding for four PDMC attorneys and one supervising attorney position in the new contract. Because the state would not agree to implement evidence-based national caseload standards, PDMC has been forced to layoff investigators, case managers, and Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination applicants.
Wilson said that the state's harmful quotas drive experienced attorneys out of public defense, worsening the shortage of public defenders and worsening the unrepresented crisis. Nearly 90 percent of people facing charges in Oregon qualify for a public defender, according to the Oregon Judicial Department.
The state has three options when offering public defense representation: nonprofit firms like PDMC and SWOPDS, for-profit private attorneys, or the state trial division. Nonprofit public defenders are the most cost-effective providers in the system, handling over 35,000 cases annually across the state, and training nearly all of Oregon's new public defenders.
###
November 6, 2025
Public Defenders of Marion County File Emergency Suit to Protect Constitutional Rights and Block Harmful Quota System
October 1, 2025
SALEM, Ore.—Public Defenders of Marion County filed an emergency lawsuit Tuesday against the Oregon Public Defense Commission challenging the enforceability of the proposed state contract for public defense. Under the terms of that contract, it would be impossible in most instances for public defenders to effectively protect and preserve their client’s constitutional rights.
The lawsuit centers on the public defense contracts for 2025-2027, which take effect today. Those contracts institute a new quota system for public defender caseloads that is based on an antiquated and thoroughly discredited caseload standard developed more than 50 years ago. In the lawsuit, Public Defenders of Marion County (PDMC) asks the court to enjoin Oregon Public Defense Commission (OPDC) from enforcing that quota provision, and asks instead that the quota provision be replaced by the up-to-date, evidence-based national standards that OPDC previously had adopted.
“Everyone deserves quality legal representation, whether they can afford a lawyer or not,” said Shannon Wilson, executive director of PDMC. “That's what the Constitution promises and what justice requires. The proposed state contract for public defenders undermines our legal system. It will increase the number of people facing life-changing consequences with an attorney in name only. And, it will force qualified attorneys out of the workforce, making the crisis worse. When public defenders are forced to take more cases than they can competently handle, people without financial resources simply do not receive equal justice under the law.”
"This contract is clearly unenforceable," said Joshua Krumholz, lead counsel for PDMC. Krumholz is a partner at the international law firm of Holland & Knight, and has significant experience representing public defenders carrying excessive workloads. “The court system has the fundamental responsibility of making sure that all stand equal in the eyes of the law and that justice is served in its courts. Clear standards exist that tell us when public defenders have exceeded their capacity. The state chooses to ignore those standards, as well as the Sixth Amendment, Oregon law, and the Oregon rules of professional conduct."
Under the new quota contract, the state would eliminate funding for four PDMC attorneys and one supervising attorney position.
The new contract would also force PDMC and other public defenders to assign new cases to attorneys who already carry full caseloads. This approach would especially overload misdemeanor and minor felony attorneys. For instance, the quota system would require attorneys to handle 300 misdemeanor cases a year, allowing just 5.26 hours, on average, for each misdemeanor case. That average doesn’t include the number of cases attorneys already have on their plates. The new evidence-based national standard, on the other hand, would allow 14 to 22 hours, on average, to get to resolution, depending upon the type of misdemeanor charged.
One of the reasons for those additional hours is because the national standards take into account the increasing complexity of the criminal system, where public defenders now need to sort through body cam footage, scientific testing and digital evidence, among many other areas.
Nearly 90 percent of people facing charges in Oregon qualify for a public defender, according to the Oregon Judicial Department. Because of poor working conditions caused by excessive caseloads, public defenders will leave the system, taking up a new profession or going to states like Washington, where the state Supreme Court recently adopted the national standards. When Marion County judges implemented forced appointments in 2023, for example, PDMC lost 13 attorneys in 11 months – over 60% of their criminal defense team.
Numerous federal and state laws govern public defense and the ethical responsibilities of attorneys, including the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions and ORS 151.216, which requires effective assistance of counsel and evidence-based workload standards.
Filing Materials
###
Press and Media Outlets
PDMC respects the Fourth Estate and the First Amendment. The office has a policy of cooperating with the media to the extent such contact is ethically permitted, and as long as the communications are not adverse to any client’s interest. In general that means while a case is pending we will be able to communicate with you only about procedural matters and fact-specific information that is already a matter of public record. Once the case is resolved the ethical restrictions are somewhat relaxed, but our principle obligation remains to our client or former client.
If you are seeking general information about the criminal justice system, comments on a particular law, or a piece of legislation that impacts the criminal justice system our attorneys are happy to speak with you as time permits. Questions of such a general nature should probably be directed to the Executive Director, however.