The Virginia Indigent Defense Commission has adopted standards of practice for the public defenders and court-appointed attorneys who represent indigent defendants in the state.

The standards don't take effect until April 1, so as to give the General Assembly and those affected by the standards a final chance to weigh in on them.

The standards are in three parts: for indigent defense counsel, for appellate criminal defense representation and for representation of juveniles.

Although the commission has published the standards on its Web site (www.indigentdefense.virginia.gov) and sent them to more than 125 bar groups, "We didn't get as much feedback as we would have liked," acknowledged David J. Johnson, executive director of the commission, at its meeting last month.

That was one reason for delaying the effective date of the standards, as several commission members recalled the outrage generated by what some experienced criminal defense attorneys viewed as the insulting tone of the application they had to fill out when they came under the supervision of the commission in 2004.

"There are going to be grumblings," John-son predicted, but added that the standards are "meant to raise the bar" for representation of indigent defendants.

The standards are part of the 2004 legislation that created the commission to oversee court-appointed attorneys and public defender offices.

Johnson said the legislative mandate to have the commission regulate the ethical and professional performance of lawyers appears to be unique. In other states, bar groups typically produce and enforce such standards. Attorneys covered by the Virginia standards still will be subject to regulation and discipline by the Virginia State Bar under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The 2004 legislation coincided with a study by the American Bar Association that concluded that low pay for PDs and fee caps for court-appointed attorneys contribute to a system that enables and tolerates substandard representation of indigent defendants.

Proponents of better pay for indigent defense attorneys were bitterly disappointed in the last session of the General Assembly but took heart from what they viewed as acknowledgement of the problem by most legislators.

Budget analysts for Gov. Timothy M. Kaine are known to be looking at a package that would provide significantly increased funding for both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys, as are members of the Supreme Court of Virginia staff.

Sources with some knowledge of the package given Kaine's staff by Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr. say it proposes adding about $40 million for court-appointed pay by increasing fee caps, making them waivable and basing payment on cases rather than charges, as is now the compensation scheme.

Steven D. Benjamin, a Richmond criminal defense attorney who is a member of the Indigent Defense Commission and counsel to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, said at the meeting that he believes the standards will show that increased funding will produce a better criminal justice system.

The standards are "something we can be very, very proud of," he said. "It's a terrific piece of work. "

Expectations laid out

The standards start with the lawyer-client relationship, familiarity with the substantive law and such general duties as the commitment of "sufficient time, resources, knowledge and experience to offer quality representation to a defendant in a particular matter. "

They devote two full, single-spaced pages to how the attorney should conduct the initial interview with the client. Such matters as investigation and discovery, preliminary hearings, pretrial motions and plea negotiations, sentencing and post-trial motions get similarly exhaustive treatment.

The standards of practice for juvenile representation are even more detailed and include knowledge of child development as a component of effective representation.

Other matters discussed at the commission meeting included:

* A $200,000 study of the appropriate caseloads for PDs and court-appointed attorneys. The effort may be undertaken jointly with the State Crime Commission and will build off a recent study of the Maryland system by the National Center for State Courts, Johnson said.

* Proposals by some legislators for a statewide public defender system. "I want to be able to frame the debate," Johnson said. "I don't want to extend an understaffed and underfunded program to the entire state. "

* The use of money available from unfilled positions to pay retention bonuses to experienced, productive PDs. Offices have been plagued by high turnover that Johnson blames largely on low pay and high caseloads.