The Champion of Public Defense Award recognizes an individual or group for exceptional efforts in making positive changes to a local, county, state, or federal public defense system. Although the outstanding direct, individual representation of every defendant is one of NACDL's foremost goals, this award is intended to highlight efforts toward systemic advances through legislation, litigation, or other strategies.

As a result of generous grant funding, NACDL is able to offer scholarship assistance to public defense attorneys to attend training programs.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Argument: Plaintiffs allege systemic deficiencies in Idaho’s provision of public defense services and seek prospective relief. The court is addressing the proper standard to apply to plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs should be required to demonstrate that Idaho’s public defense system presents a substantial risk of harm to members of the plaintiff class. The types of harm that can result from the systemic deficiencies alleged by plaintiffs include overly high bail, unnecessary or overlong pretrial detention, unwarranted guilty pleas leading to negative collateral consequences, lack of time and resources to prepare defenses, wrongful convictions, and economic and social costs to society as a whole. 

Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the need for more funding for public defense services, made even more critical by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Presented by: Ariel Simms, Criminal Justice Attorney Fellow, National Center on Criminal Justice and Disability (NCCJD), The Arc

and Attorney Workload Standards

The Sixth Amendment's promise that every person accused of a crime is entitled to counsel is a hollow one when the attorney appointed lacks the time and resources to provide meaningful representation. In order to determine whether defenders in Rhode Island are facing a caseload crisis, NACDL, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants (ABA SCLAID), and the accounting firm of BlumShapiro undertook an assessment of the Rhode Island Public Defender system ("RIPD"). [Released November 2017]

The Fourth Amendment has entered the digital age. New surveillance technologies and programs — from GPS tracking devices to automated license plate readers to bulk data collection — have upended traditional law enforcement practices and created new challenges for defense lawyers. This report offers an overview of this symposium and the substantive areas of concern related to new technological and legal changes that impact Fourth Amendment protections in criminal cases. [Released June 2016]

When a person is accused of a crime, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that person the right to a lawyer even if they cannot afford one. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this basic principle more than a half century ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, and in subsequent cases that expanded the right to misdemeanor prosecutions. Yet this right is violated every day in South Carolina’s magistrate and municipal courts – collectively referred to as summary courts – where scores of people are convicted, sentenced, and sometimes incarcerated, without having been represented by counsel. [Released April 2016]

The crisis in public defense in Louisiana has been well-documented by the news media over the past several years. Stories of overloaded public defenders, unrepresented individuals languishing in jail, and mass pleas have shocked the nation’s conscience, but the system’s shortcomings have long evaded reform. However, much coverage of the public defense crisis in Louisiana, the state with the highest incarceration rate in the nation, has focused its attention on the consequences of the crisis rather than its causes. [Released March 2017]

Researchers systematically gathered data from magistrate and municipal courts in five counties. The research confirms that there is a pervasive lack of procedural justice and fairness in these courts. Far too many accused persons are not advised of basic constitutional rights, and even when they are, those rights are not respected. [Released January 2017]

In 2012, NACDL collaborated with the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants (SCLAID) to host an innovative project to foment broad-based reform. This report highlights the wide-ranging discussion and innovative proposals for reform discussed during the focus group. [Released January 2013]

The explosive growth of misdemeanor cases is placing a staggering burden on America's courts. Defenders across the country are forced to carry unethical caseloads that leave too little time for clients to be properly represented. As a result, constitutional obligations are left unmet and taxpayers' money is wasted. [Released April 2009]

On April 6 and 7, 2017, NACDL, the Foundation for Criminal Justice, the Monroe Freedman Institute for the Study of Legal Ethics at Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Center for Court Innovation, and the State of New York Unified Court System convened a conference designed to explore the impediments to and reforms needed to ensure effective justice in all stages of the criminal process, with a particular focus on the judicial role in high-volume misdemeanor courts. [Released December 2017]

The Right to Counsel in State Courts

This 50-state Survey of Right to Counsel Standards documents how states decide when a qualifying individual charged with criminal wrongdoing is entitled to receive appointed counsel. Some states only appoint counsel in cases of actual incarceration following conviction, while others mandate appointed counsel based solely on the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime. Other states fall between these standards and appoint counsel when a sentence of incarceration is authorized or likely to be imposed following conviction. [Released October 2016]

This 50-State Survey of Financial Eligibility Guidelines for Assigned Counsel documents how states decide who is “too poor” to hire a lawyer. The survey looks at how states define “indigency” and whether or not that definition is consistent with ABA standards for providing defense services. It identifies which states rely on the Federal Poverty Guidelines when determining eligibility for assigned counsel, and explains the origin of the Federal Poverty Guidelines and how they cannot accurately predict who is “too poor” to hire a lawyer. [Released March 2014]