Suit challenging public defender system gets go ahead

The New York Court of Appeals Thursday gave the go-ahead to a lawsuit seeking reform of the state's public defender system, holding that widespread failings alleged in the system of providing lawyers to poor people in criminal cases could be addressed in a class action.

The suit charges the state's patchwork system of leaving it to counties to provide lawyers is underfunded, and focuses on five counties - one of them Suffolk - that allegedly provide no lawyers in some cases and overburdened, inattentive lawyers in others. "This action . . . endeavors to preserve our means of criminal adjudication from the inevitably corrosive effects and unjust consequences of an unfair adversary process," Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote for a 4-3 majority.

The decision followed years of official reports criticizing the state's system. It was lauded by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case in the names of 20 defendants who said they received deficient representation in the five counties. "With this victory, New York is a step closer to justice," said NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman. "Justice should not depend on the size of your wallet. But every day in courtrooms throughout the state, New Yorkers are denied justice simply because they are poor."

A criminal defendant's right to counsel is guaranteed in the constitution, and a 1963 Supreme Court decision ruled that states had to provide attorneys for defendants too poor to afford them. New York delegated that task to the counties.

The lawsuit alleged that, in 2007, Suffolk's defender system had 60 lawyers and six investigators to work on thousands of cases a year. Individuals from Suffolk named as plaintiffs reported that their lawyers were completely unprepared and barely knew them before bail hearings, trials or sentencings.

The state argued that the suit, filed in 2007 in Albany, should not proceed because the courts could handle individual appeals of defendants who got inadequate representation, but should not get into systemic reform. An appellate court dismissed the suit on that ground.

Thursday's ruling reinstating the suit was not a complete victory for the plaintiffs. Lippman said claims that some people weren't given lawyers or got lawyers so disengaged that they were providing representation in name only could proceed, but that efforts to improve the quality of lawyers through more training and supervision did not belong in the courts.

The suit will now go back to a trial court to see if the claims of widespread inadequacy can be proven. But the ruling also could trigger movement toward a settlement or action in the State Legislature.