Use of ADC Lawyers in Courtrooms

In response to The Times’ editorial “Courts Stand to Lose a Lot,” Nov. 13:

I applaud your opposition to the 11th-hour politics that appeared to jeopardize $130 million in needed state trial court funding. Your point was that the issues raised at the last minute by the Board of Supervisors were deserving of more careful study and should not be dictated as hastily added conditions of the funding agreement. So far, so, good!

However, your discussion of one of the issues--the demand for wider utilization of Alternate Defense Counsel (ADC) lawyers to represent indigent defendants when the public defender is unavailable--was in part erroneous and in another part incomplete.

As one of the more senior judges on the Criminal Division of the Superior Court, I can tell you that I have found the lawyers of the ADC staff to be pleasant and professional, to afford their clients quality professional representation, and to have an excellent record of availability, punctuality and responsiveness to the court. I was on the court before the ADC was extended into the Criminal Division downtown; they are a welcome addition to my courtroom!

The furnishing of constitutionally guaranteed defense services to the vast majority of criminal defendants who are indigent is a huge budgetary, logistical and professional challenge. There must be room for creative solutions, including those that make economic sense, while preserving the all-important participation of the private bar in the criminal justice system. The Alternate Defense Counsel is a logical and responsible approach to finding the right mix of solutions.

ALEXANDER H. WILLIAMS III

Superior Court Judge

Los Angeles