County Drafts Plan to Trim Legal Expenses : Courts: Budget planners propose law office with in-house staff to handle “conflicts” cases now farmed out to more costly private attorneys.

Stung by a legal bill this year of $14 million, San Diego County budget planners are proposing the creation of a new county law office to handle those court cases in which the county Public Defender’s Office has a conflict of interest, according to officials.

Instead of farming out thousands of so-called “conflicts” cases to private attorneys, the county plan calls for an in-house staff of lawyers to take over the work beginning Jan. 1, 1991, officials said.

Because the in-house staff would be salaried employees, not private attorneys paid an hourly rate, the county, which must provide poor people with a free lawyer in certain criminal and juvenile court cases, expects the plan to eventually save up to $5 million a year, officials said.

The tentative plan is scheduled to be formally presented on May 1 to the county Board of Supervisors, said June Komar, deputy chief administrative officer.

Norman Hickey, county chief administrative officer, said in an interview last week that he asked budget planners about a month ago to look into the feasibility of creating an in-house agency, after learning that the revised cost of the current system, which was budgeted for $2.3 million in fiscal 1990, had reached $14 million--a 609% increase.

Under the current system, that money is dispensed to about 350 San Diego-area lawyers in private practice through the Department of Alternate Defense Counsel, better known as the “conflicts office.”

That office coordinates the assignment of cases that the county Public Defender’s Office cannot handle because of a conflict of interest. Most such cases involve multiple defendants or, in juvenile court, any number of relatives, all of whom may be entitled under the U.S. Constitution to a free lawyer. The astonishing hike from $2.3 million to $14 million is attributable, in part, to the rise in drug-related cases swamping courts, lawyers, judges and budget managers have said. Another factor is the inability to predict the caseload in a given year and, consequently, how many lawyers those cases will require, they said.

However, the major factor is that, in formulating the $2.3 million estimate, county budget officials failed to count an entire category of juvenile court cases.

Those cases--juvenile dependency matters, in which the county seeks custody of a child it contends has been abused or neglected--are projected to account for 70%--17,382--of the 24,975 cases the conflicts department expects to process in fiscal 1990, Elliot G. Lande, office director, has said.

The plan focuses significantly on those juvenile dependency cases, Komar said.

The new conflicts office would open with about 30 lawyers and 50 support staff, she said. About 15 lawyers would be assigned to dependency cases, she said.

In addition, the plan calls for the Public Defender’s Office, which now has only four deputies assigned to dependency work, to add 20 to 25 lawyers, all of whom would handle such cases, Komar said.

As before, the county counsel office would represent the Department of Social Services in dependency matters. Deputy public defenders, however, would assume the role of private lawyers, and the new conflicts office would advise parents or other relatives.

Budget officials expect that by assigning lawyers to specific groups of clients, the attorneys will become experts, helping “the quality of services to children,” Komar said.

If approved by the county board, the new system would assign cases to those three agencies as of Jan. 1, 1991, Komar said. Cases already assigned to private lawyers would remain with those attorneys, she said.

There will still be some conflicts cases, in criminal and in juvenile court, that the new in-house office cannot take, Komar said. Private lawyers would continue to receive those assignments, she said.

“The broad thinking is that our mission is to create a government that deserves the respect of people,” said Hickey, county chief administrator. “A question that faces us is, ‘How do we work with the judicial system and make sure that justice is imparted?’

“We are charged to do it with (taxpayer) money, a trusteeship, so that we try to do it effectively and within the dollar amount,” Hickey said, explaining the reasons for creating a new office. “(So) you’re open to see if there isn’t always a better way to do it.”

Budget managers are optimistic that the new system would, however, save the county money because it is patterned after their experience with the Public Defender’s Office, itself a newly created agency, Komar said.

Formed by a May, 1988, vote of the county board, the Public Defender’s Office replaced a hodgepodge of services provided by a small staff of civil service lawyers and about 400 private attorneys. That system had been ridiculed nationwide for its inefficiency, costliness--lawyers paid by the hour are generally more expensive--and spotty quality.

The about 350 lawyers now being assigned cases through the conflicts office earn from $25 to $75 an hour, with most making $40, $50 or $60, and bill the county for thousands of hours a year, Lande, the office administrator, has said. Experienced trial lawyers on the county payroll earn a fixed salary ranging from $44,500 to $74,048 a year.

In its first year, fiscal year 1989, when the patchwork of contract lawyers continued to shoulder the caseload, the Public Defender’s Office spent some $27 million, Public Defender Frank Bardsley said.

This fiscal year, relying on some 180 in-house lawyers, the agency’s budget is about $16.5 million, he said.

Budget officials expect the new conflicts office to break even the first year or “perhaps produce some small savings,” Komar said. Beginning in its second year--that is, fiscal 1992, beginning July 1, 1991--planners “would certainly hope” for annual savings that eventually would reach “in the neighborhood of $4 million to $5 million,” Komar said.

To the county, consistently strapped financially because it is shortchanged tens of millions of dollars a year in state tax revenues relative to other counties on a per capita basis, “several million dollars of savings a year will make a big difference,” Komar said.

“A substantial and growing part of the county’s available general fund dollars are going into the justice system,” Komar said. “One of our highest priorities at the staff level is to figure out ways to be more cost-effective and more productive.”

She cautioned, however, that while $5 million in annual savings appears to be a reasonable estimate, that figure could be significantly less if caseload growth continues.

Before the plan is presented formally to the board, details need to be finalized and further talks need to be held with court officials and lawyers, Hickey said. Judges with whom he already has discussed the plan seemed receptive, he said.

Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr., the presiding judge at Juvenile Court, could not be reached for comment.

Judge Arthur W. Jones, the Superior Court’s assistant presiding judge, said judges have “talked about (the plan) casually” but “have not gone on record about anything.”

He added, “We would favor anything that would create some economy in this regard and service the litigant. It’s shocking the amount of money that’s expended, we all agree with that.”

Hickey said he recognized that lawyers whose fees are in jeopardy might be likely to oppose the plan.

But, he said, “It always is that when you change a system and a method of doing things, you’re going to have some complaints. And we accept that. But that’s why we’re trying to talk to everybody before we leap into it.”

Local bar association leaders could not be reached for comment.