02/09/2026 Senate Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Judiciary

I'll call this meeting to order. This is the subcommittee on appropriations for judicial. Thank you all for being here this morning. I guess the rest of the members may have stayed up watching the Super Bowl, so they are not here. We're gonna go a little bit out of order because, judge Hightower has a jury trial that starts at 09:00.

So we're gonna let you go ahead and, hopefully, get you back in time to call the jury in. So if you wanna come on up. Your preference. And it'll start on page 12, Randy.

I'll be on time and doing well. So thank you again for allowing me to to jump the line and to the rest. I appreciate y'all as well.

So thank you.

Following your tracking sheets, do you want me to just jump in or do you want me to

Yeah. Let's just jump in and, you don't have to go over the statewide spreads. Just the changes that the house made. Let us know if that's something you're good with. And if not, if that's something we need to look at a little further.

Okay. So don't go over just the statewide, the 2,000 on everything. Don't go over that. That. Just the changes.

Yep. Okay.

Alright. Then I believe we are on 30.8, is going to be your main one. That is what the that portion there reflects the portion that the house, took out. That reflects the amount of the 33 judges, that have not opted in to the new pay structure. The way that I believe you get to that number, if you go to 30 I'm sorry.

I believe it's

You can get this one here.

30.3. If you take that 42, $4.82 and times that times 33 plus an additional roughly just over $7,000 for one month of one judge that opted in, I believe, in February. That gives you the $7.00 $4.04 93. I

think it's half

half half.

I'm sorry. Half.

Yes. Correct.

That would have been the total that I gave you, and then they took half of that total.

Okay. So we funded it just in case every judge opted in. Yes, sir. And 33 judges chose not to. That is correct.

So the house took out half of what was needed if everyone opted in at the same time.

Yes, sir.

Have you spoken to those judges that opted out? My understanding is it's unlikely that they would opt in at this point.

That is that is where we're at. We think that it would be unlikely. This since this would be only through July 1, it would they usually would have let us know by now. That's the best I can say, because they would start checking with Shannon. They They just start checking with retirement.

We haven't had those calls. So it's it is unlikely. Okay. We would have someone opt in between now and then. Because it's either opt in or retire.

Because if someone were to retire and someone would be appointed, they would automatically be in the new structure. So it's not just that someone would opt in as if someone will retire and a new person will be appointed. But both of those are unlikely to fit within that time frame from July. I think it's July 1. Correct?

Because that would have to have someone who would either retire and the governor would have to appoint by July 1 or someone would opt in. And we do believe that all those that would have opt in would have done so by now.

Okay. So Well, just so the record can reflect where we're headed, I think if someone was going to opt in, they may need to tell tell somebody before Yes, sir.

Before this budget passes.

We've we've tried to send that message Okay. Good. Thoroughly. So yes, sir.

Yeah. Loud and and clear. So that was thirty point eight. I think that was at the, the thirty point one, thirty point two, thirty point three, those are new judges. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. So those three judges, those started effectively January 1. They were funded based on the old pay structure, but because they start on January 1, this is the this is what brings them into the new pay structure.

Okay. Because we passed the budget before we passed the bill. Yes, sir. Okay.

So those those are the ones that are necessary just for those to be where they're supposed to be.

Alright. Chairman, do you have any for mister Wood, do you have any questions?

I think all of you expanded three.

Yeah. Three more. Well, I think based on that, I appreciate you coming today. I know that was quick. That's alright.

But just if you would, please reiterate the message, that the direction the budget is going and probably gonna follow suit with the house. Yes, sir. If you could ask those judges if anybody's planning on opting in, we need to know that.

Absolutely. The good thing is really just three circuits, and we know those circuits. We know those judges. We so it's it's a very easy message. It's a very targeted message.

We know the folks that needs to go to. So we feel pretty comfortable that they are gonna be where they are, but we'll do that again as directed.

Yeah. Alright. Hang on one second.

Good morning, judge. Good morning. It's good to see you. Good to

see you as well.

So you say it's only three circuits where the judges have chosen not to opt in?

I believe that's correct.

Could you mind telling me what those three circuits are?

Fulton, DeKalb, and Cobb.

Yeah. Notice the non look of shock on my face. I I do appreciate that.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Well, thank you for coming this morning. Absolutely.

That helped us understand, and, good luck.

Yeah. Thank you.

Jury trial. Drive safe on the way Yes, sir. Way back.

Thank you again for taking me out of order. Absolutely.

Alright. So that was the superior court. Next, we'll go back to the top of the list with the court of appeals.

Is this okay, chairman? That's great. Alright.

Here. So they start on yep. They're page one.

Good morning. Good morning. Chairman Hatchett, member of the committee. Appreciate y'all having us this morning. Trent Brown for the Court of Appeals.

How do you wanna go forward? There's not a whole lot of numbers on ours. Everything was pretty much approved by the house. The three numbers. Yeah.

I think there was some change with the Statewide. With the insurance. And then we appreciate the house adding on the $2,000

per employee, in their budget. Yeah. Following the governor's recommendation, I think, what I'll I'll first just wanna ask about 12.1. Right. That extra $40,000, if you don't mind helping me understand what exactly that would be for.

Absolutely. January, we had a new judge that was elected that came on. That judge replaced a non commuting judge. So there would be no money in the budget for that judge. And when he came on in January, we knew he was going to commute, but we really didn't have the data, how much we would need to ask for.

So we we weren't able to put anything in the amended '25. We weren't able to put anything in the fiscal twenty six. And, basically, we funded the first half of fiscal twenty six on our own internally so far, and that 40 represents what we anticipate was is gonna be the full year fiscal twenty six to pay all the cost of that commuting judge, that new commuting judge.

So y'all have already funded some of this yourselves?

We actually funded the last part of fiscal twenty six internally. This, the last part of fiscal twenty five internally. This would fund all of, fiscal twenty six. Basically, 40,000. It's it's where it averages out over the year.

I mean, sometimes there might be more commuting in the first of the year or the latter part, but it's about $40,000 a year. He is coming from Northwest Georgia. So he's one of the furthest commutes for

us. Okay. The next question I have is actually so it'd be on page two. Mhmm. And it involves the contract that you have for security.

Right. My understanding is that it's joint security for both the Court

of Appeals and the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court did not ask for any funding for this. They didn't, and I can't speak for them. But what I what I believe is, basically, they did have a surplus between, vacancies or otherwise, and they're also not doing any, IT changes like we are. That's where the one ninety seven, the next number, where we're going from a hardware based redundancy to cloud based. They're not doing that yet, but I'm not sure why they didn't need it, but it wasn't built in our budget.

So the $62.05 covers our half of the security director based on that contract that we share with the Sprint Corps.

Okay. And it is it looks like it's

a little more than half. Could you speak to that at all? I can't. I thought it was half.

Should be should be half. We

I'm happy to look into that. I I took it for granted the last several times that I've used that number that it was a a half of the contract.

If if we're looking at the larger of the larger sorry, chairman. Good morning. Chris Walker. I'm the CFO. If we're looking at the larger number maybe that we're looking at in the, you know, the big budget request and the '27 budget request, it would not, you know, equate to that because this is strictly a contract.

And and also the other piece of it, there was a contract with DG, the GDC Department of Corrections, where we had stand through GDC. And then starting January 1, we began contracting with Stan directly. So that might hopefully, that might answer some of the question there. But I'll be glad to take a look at it it and get with Jennifer too if And that's that doesn't answer you.

Yeah. Yeah.

Scoop, our security director. And and Stan, has he already performed these services?

He is in, he is performing them now.

Correct.

He's in the process. He's already

And then that final number, the $1.97 is, like I said, the the transition in

into the

cloud. The cost associated with that, the licenses or otherwise.

Judge, the the monies that y'all used to fund the position for the, commute, where'd that money come from?

We've just had to, for lack of a better term, kinda take it out of our own hide, senator, for right now. We're we're hoping to get it back filled because

That that was my question. So so does this backfill that at all

or is

it just get you moving forward?

No. It would actually backfill what we've spent thus far in fiscal year twenty six.

20 of it would fund would backfill, and 20 of it is what we anticipate.

What you anticipate cost us?

Remainder, fiscal twenty six.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Alright. Obviously, there weren't a whole lot of changes in the house. Yes, sir. Pretty good there. So, Any any request?

Do we need to increase anything?

I mean, that's okay.

Well, I appreciate you coming in, Jimmy. We appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Have a good one.

Alright. Next up is the Georgia tax court.

Alright.

Thank you all for coming this morning. Yes, sir. So this starts on page seven. Right? So, I guess, first, let's go over the changes the house made and get some feedback on that from you.

Yes, sir. The and, thank you for having me here today. The house made a couple of of subtractions, in funds for operations and contracts. When we first put this budget together, there's a lot of discovery for the new court. And as it turns out, well, the, tribunal was using the same case management system as the, OSHA judges in the executive branch.

And they thought it thought it wouldn't be appropriate to be on the same case management system for a judicial branch judge. And so didn't know where I was gonna end up, but it turns out that the case management system that's being developed, they can put the tax court on that system, with very little if if no cost. So that was a great thing to find out. And and let me just say they, of course, that, chief justice, the AOC, budget director, Andrew Rizal here, Cynthia Clanton, and the OSHA judges have been wonderful to deal with in helping to make sure this gets off on on the right foot. And and just in brief, I'm good with the changes that the house made because we've discovered ways to economize.

In fact, we'll be starting out where judge O'Neil is currently housed with the OSHA judges on 225 Peachtree Street, but using a different case management system.

He will be using a different case management system?

With the tax court will be. Yes, sir.

Okay. Alright. So the I guess, on line is it twenty point two? Twenty one point two? Yeah.

So that that in the decrease from 42,000 to 22,000, do you still need the 22,000?

The, the rent for the tax court is gonna include some charges that OSHA didn't have before for common areas. And, Andrew, is there more

sure. Yes, sir. Good morning, chairman Hatcher. So the the money that has come out of that item is for the savings and rent costs since that, judge O'Connell will be, just going into the existing space that judge O'Neil has so they won't be having rent costs for this amended fiscal year. So the remainder of that money is more operational costs like his supplies and materials, travel, anything, you know, just any operational costs that he would incur between April and June 30 minus the, estimated amount we had put in for rent costs.

Okay. Alright. So at this point, are you confident you have the budget you need to operate for the rest of the fiscal year?

Yes, mister

chairman. On line 21.3, the decrease from $1.10 to $60,000, with your current caseload and any caseload you may inherit, is that $60,000 in your mind, is that going to be enough for you right now?

Yes, sir. Part of those funds are for a staff attorney and administrator for that period. And judge O'Neil's staff attorney found another job. And so he and I are working together to find someone who can start and help him out, as we transition towards, July 1. And so the tribunal might be able to cover the cost between now and, April.

And so I won't need as much funding for the staff attorney and the administrator.

Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for coming this morning. Unless you have anything else?

No. But, thank you for having me here and, look forward to hit hitting the ground running. So thank you, sir.

Good luck. Thank you. Alright. Next up is the Georgia Public Defender Council. Good morning.

Good morning.

Thanks for coming this morning. Thank you. Yeah. I'd like to hear from you first just on the changes that were made Okay. And kinda give us some insight into, the difference there, what's needed, what's not, and, I will let you take it away.

Okay. Thank you so much, and thank you for having us again. Public defenders, I have with me a crew this morning. I'll quickly introduce who is here with me. I sit right here is Terry.

She's gonna tell you what's the difference between what was approved and what we'll be asking for this morning. But sitting behind me is the is, Cle Tapley from Dublin and Leticia Dela from Stone Mountain, and, Natalie is our chief, legal officer. And if I can turn my neck right here, it's it gets more difficult. It's, Deandre Berry who's gonna talk about the if you do have the questions. We do have, a little bit of a difference between what they have approved and what we'll be asking for today.

But, basically, we're really asking you to please, approve what the governor has put on his books. And I'll let Terry take it away so we don't take a whole lot of your time.

Thank you. We could be found on page, fifteen and sixteen of your tracking sheet. And just to go over the changes, starting at two four six point two, that deals with conflict cases. And, the in the governor's recommendation, it was 5.5 was placed. 5,500,000.0 was placed in the budget.

For the house version, they removed it, and we're asking for your reconsideration to put the funds back into our budge or follow the governor's recommendation due to the cases are still coming in. And if we're not funded, we won't be able to pay the contractors due to rest of the fiscal year. And I'm talking about conflict contractors c two contractors. And for moving down to page sixteen, two four six point four, that's to align the assistant public defender salaries with the assistant district attorney salaries. The, in the house version, they placed it in our budget.

It's $2,000,000 with an effective date of April 1, and we're asking for your consideration to place it in your version of, of our budget. And those are the only two big changes. The rest are statewide.

So they what the house did essentially was they took 5.5 out in one section, but they put the $2,000,000 in in another section so that you can get your public defenders funded on April 1.

Correct.

Can you walk me through I have the sheet of the circuit breakdown, and I don't know if you have something similar, but, all the conflict cases and all the circuits, that $5,500,000, can you kind of just explain to the committee where that money goes and how decisions are made as to who is who becomes a conflict attorney?

I could tell you where the money goes, but the other part

is very Yeah.

Okay. So for the conflict program, we have we have satellite offices, which means we have employees, investigators, and admins, and we also have contractors that work on a per diem basis. We pay them a contract. For example, our standard contract is 100,000 for a 100 cases, and we have c three contract attorneys, which are just single they just take one case, just a single payment, and we pay them $7,500. So that is where all the funds are going to, to the c two contractors and the c three, attorneys that take the single cases.

The 7,500 per case, what type of case is it that that they get, or is it a wide range of different cases?

Well, anything that deals in superior court felonies,

murder case. Oh, 7,500. Only the

murder case. Murder case. Regular felony is, like, 3,000.

That's it.

But we don't do a whole lot of the c three cases Mhmm. Because we've been trying to work within our budget. So most of our cases are under that $100,000 for a 100 felony cases. So roughly, it's about 1,000 a case. That's what we have most

Would you would you like to come up to witness three? Yeah.

Yeah. It's just about the case. Alright.

Could could you explain that again between the 7,500 and what that's for?

For the 7,500 is either murder or RICO. Miss Ali is saying that potentially those are other cases too.

So let me go ahead and explain that. Okay. For the 7,500 cases, also the c threes, and we don't have quite a few. We don't have a lot of those anymore. We what we've done lately is that we've tried to convert that to what we could now call the c twos, and those are the ones we give a certain contract to.

And Natalie manages those cases, and that's, we give 100 cases to certain individuals to manage for us, and that's to avoid paying the 7,500 that you, we just talked about. Can you imagine if we were to pay 7,500 case for 100 cases? That's $7,750,000. So we have turned that around by having contractors in house that we have brought in so we can, have people in house that can take cases that we know specifically where they are, and we can create some kind of stability for knowing, where the cases are going to be. So we don't do a whole lot of those 7,500 cases anymore, but we did a lot of those in the past.

Do you know how many

you We're still doing?

Yeah.

I can get those for you, before the end of the day if we still have that many. But what we do have that many right now is the, contractors that are, the in house contractors. And I do have somebody here who probably can speak to that even more than I do. Yes. Well, I

I think it would be important for, obviously, the committee to understand, you know, if you're paying one group a thousand dollars case essentially, you know, a $100,000 for a 100 cases versus $7,500 for another case, I think that would be very helpful for us when we're deciding how much to put back in.

Absolutely.

Good morning. I'm Deandre Berry, mister chairman. Good morning. Our, monthly contractors, as missus Ali just stated, those are the the attorneys that we rely on. As she stated, we formally used our c three cases our c three attorneys where we no longer we phase those people out.

We're using now our monthly contractors. Now the monthly contractors, for FY twenty five, we had 15,465 cases that were assigned to those, attorneys. For f y twenty four, there were 17,716 cases that were assigned to those people.

And are they all conflicts Yes. That are assigned? And conflicts are usually with multiple defendants. Is that correct?

Yes. Yes. Okay.

So you went from 17 roughly 17,724 to 25. You went down to 15,465?

It it ebbs and flows, depends on the number of cases that are indicted by the prosecutors, of course.

And of those, how many were the $7,500 cases?

I do not have that information, but, I can definitely provide that to you by end end of the day.

Yeah. Because I I mean, obviously

But all but all of those all of those cases are in fact the monthly contractors. Every one of those are.

Okay. Yes. With your contractors, I'm assuming and maybe I shouldn't assume, but are most of those in the metro area? Statewide. And these contractors, they go statewide.

They're not just isolated to a certain region?

No. This is statewide. This is all over the state of Georgia.

Okay. Yeah. Do you have a breakdown of with your contractors that you normally do business with, that are getting these cases where they are geographically?

This is the The sheet that, we provided you, sir, it's a breakdown of the various circuits and the conflict attorneys assigned, I thought.

What that that may be a question that I need answered then. Yes, sir. So I see the number of conflict cases. Yes, sir. And I and those are assigned, obviously.

But when you're talking about your your contractors, 100 cases for a 100,000, are those actual contractors, are they going statewide? Or, like, if you have someone in Far Southwest Georgia or Far Northeast Georgia, are you you more likely to use a a smaller attorney that only handles maybe two or three cases instead of a 100?

We have contractors assigned in diff in various parts of the state. So there's not a contractor, going going to a different state just like a person would be here in in Fulton, going down to, let's just say, Alapaha. There will be a contractor basically in, Alapaha handling those cases around that area.

Okay. And they may or may not get to that 100 number, though. Correct?

They may or may not. Yes, sir. But they they have a a contract for that 100 for 100 cases.

Okay.

It depends on the number of cases that in that fiscal year.

So I'm gonna talk about that. Yeah. Yeah.

The the chairman asked the question or most of the cases in the metro area, And it was said they're spread all over the state. But if I'm looking at the numbers right, there's a heavier concentration in the metro area. Correct?

Yes, sir. Uh-uh.

Okay. So the answer to his question would be yes. Correct?

Yeah. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. And I do understand they're spread out throughout the circuits, but the but the the largest volume are in the metro area. Will we talk about Fulton decay? I

have volume.

Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Going down to $2.46.4, that $2,000,000 that was added in, that wasn't something you requested and wasn't something that was in the governor's budget. Right now, we're looking at, you know, a tighter budget this year.

You've got 5,000,000 that went out, but another 2,000,000 that went in. Would y'all or do you have a position on if there was only a finite number of money, would you want those funds split? Or would you want it pulled from 02/2004 and put back into 02/2002? I just based on y'all's what your office needs.

So may may I address that? And this is one of the reasons why I brought two people from the trenches because that speaks to the issue of parity. Over the summer, we worked very hard, and chairman Goulet and all the other members of that body, we all work together, and miss Boga here, to look at what it looks like to have parity with the prosecutor on a pay scale. And that's why we came up with what we called a common pay scale. To fund that common pay scale, it will be $4,000,000 from January to April, and that was what was decided over the summer.

And I believe the prosecutors already got got their money. This 4,000,000 is our share of that money, not so much a share, is what it will cost to fund the, public defenders to be on a scale. If we're on a scale and we have parity, it's actually, a defined budget, and it helps us to, have a stable budget that we know from year to year. It helps with retention, and I don't know that I can even speak to it as well as the people who are in the trenches because they are the ones who have to deal with the vacancies, with the retention, with the caseload, and with the backlog. And I don't want to steal from them.

They let them come in here and really speak to you why we need parity and why this is making it difficult for us us to process the cases and to, please allow us to have the benefit of having this parity that was worked so hard. We worked so hard over the summer with members of the appropriation team. Yes. He was not put in by the governor, and I think he was. No.

I No. He was not put in by the governor, but it is something that it was decided over the summer and something that we will now have to come back to you. It will help to reduce the caseload by the time we come next year because we will be able to reduce the vacancy, and we will help with the retention. And for that, I will please ask your indulgence to call Clitaply to speak to that.

Yeah. Yeah. And I I I will on the conflict cases Yes, sir. Just going back to that.

Yes, sir.

If you have a contract with I'm assuming they're law firms or they're individual attorneys?

They're individual attorneys for the most part of it. And we give them a contract for 100 cases. And it's very rare for them not to get to 100 cases. It's very, very rare. And we watch those cases that they have.

We watch the numbers to make sure that they're not going over 100 cases Because we send them to the legal deserts. In most places where we have the contractors, we cannot find attorneys to go there. And we're really struggling to find individuals who will go to places like I don't wanna stop mentioning areas of our state where we cannot attract attorneys to go. And those are the individuals that are kind enough sometimes to take contracts from us and help us manage the cases.

What happens if they don't reach a 100 cases?

What we're doing now and, miss Glazier is managing that, we pull cases from neighboring, circuits and we assign those cases. Now when we do that, we will have to pay them transportation to go to a neighboring, circuit to go handle those cases. And it's only fair. If it's not on your contract to go to a neighboring circuit, but because you have not reached your 100, we will send you there. But we manage to pay you transportation to go there.

That's fair.

Yeah. That's what we're doing.

Okay.

So we're managing managing it as such so that we can reach that 100.

Okay. Yeah.

Hey. Good morning.

Good morning. Did you wanted to come come up and talk about the $2.46.4. Is that correct?

Pay

scale. Oh, yes. Yes.

Sorry. Alright.

Leticia Delan. I'm the circuit public defender in DeKalb County.

Nice to meet you.

Thank you for having me here this morning to speak to you. So, I wanted to just talk about the pay parity a little bit. You know, the public defenders and the district attorneys are, the same in terms of what is required of us. We've gone to law school.

Excuse me. We're licensed by the state of Georgia.

We follow the same ethical rules. By the state of Georgia. We follow the same ethical rules. There are some variations there in what's required of DAs and and what's required of the defense bar, but we appear in the same courtrooms, in front of the same judges, and the same courthouses. And so it only makes sense when we are dealing with the same intense caseloads and the same intense work that we have pay parity.

You know, our our jobs aren't easy, but we've chosen this profession on both sides. There is a lot of, compassion fatigue on both sides and it's real. And so I know from my office, I see a lot of people, and I wanna say last year, I had a forty four percent attrition rate. People just either leaving for more money or leaving because the work is too hard for the amount of money that they're paid. It's too hard on them, on their families.

And so then those cases are sitting while we get somebody else up to speed, on those those particular cases, and I have to hire somebody and train them. So pay parity will help alleviate some of that concern. It's certainly not gonna cut down on on how intense this work is, but, if people are paid, with more parity, I think it will help keep people there longer. They'll feel like their efforts are are being paid for. So as to pay parity, that's what I have to say.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah. No. No. And I I mean, I agree with that, the that parity is needed. I've spoken to several public defenders, especially up in my neck of the woods, and I know their answers.

But could you give me an idea of how many cases each public defender is in charge of at any given time average?

Certainly. In my office and we handle my, the DeKalb office is a little different than a lot of the other offices because we are large county funded, and it's a very big office. I have a total of, I think, 73 attorneys. Only three, I believe, are state funded right now. So we handle everything from ordinance cases where, you know, your dog bit somebody or your grass is too high, to homicide cases.

But I would say on average, our felony attorneys are handling 300 cases each, and that, you know, some of them are up to close to closer to 400. Some of them have fewer than that. You know, there are certain courtrooms that, move a little more slowly and and so there's, you know, that's not within our control, obviously, but somebody has to staff that courtroom. So

So 300 cases that's in DeKalb. Is that uniform statewide? Do you think that average plays out across the state or

No. I I can tell you that in some circuits, I I don't have myself a a very big caseload. I have a a handful of cases, but because my office is so big, I'm I'm needed to manage the day to day functions. But I can tell you that some of my, counterparts in some of the smaller jurisdictions have several 100 cases. I was speaking to one couple of weeks ago who has 680 cases of his own, and that's the circuit public defender.

Do you know which circuit that is?

That was who was here with us? Coweta. Coweta. The Coweta circuit.

Rick Samples.

Rick Samples. Okay. K.

The conflict cases and I'm sorry to keep going back to this, but I know it looks like a majority of them are in the metro area where because of I'll I'll say they're more fortunate circuits. They have more positions that are funded by the county. Mhmm. The circuits that don't have that luxury, to have multiple positions in the public defender's office funded by the county. Why or how does the conflict case, how they're spread out.

Do I'm trying to figure out how to ask this. Mhmm. Why are they not going to more rural counties?

The the conflicts or the conflict

attorneys? Attorneys.

I I don't have an answer for that except for, some of the more rural counties are more difficult. They don't have as many attorneys, period, in those rural circuits. Okay. There's a dearth of attorneys. And then those who are there maybe don't wanna do the criminal law.

And so we're pulling largely, I think, from more, urban areas to get the attorneys to then go to these rural circuits is my guess.

Because I'm assuming these contracts with conflict cases, they help the public defender's office lessen their caseload.

They they do, although it is it lessens it because we're required by ethical rules to to make that decision about conflicts. So for example, if a case has multiple codefendants and they are all pointing fingers at one another, you know, we were we broke into this house. Well, he told me that the house was his. She told me that she was allowed to stay there. One person can't represent or one office can't represent all three of those people.

And so then we need two conflict attorneys. In the larger offices where you have more people, we can sometimes work that out and sort of create a little bit of a Chinese wall if the conflict is such that the the, clients are willing to waive, any potential conflict, sometimes in a larger office, we can sort of create that Chinese wall and and avoid having to get somebody from the outside.

Okay. But then, I guess, in a smaller office where there may be one, two, or three

Can't do that.

That's almost impossible. Exactly. Okay. Do you have any questions or anything?

Do do y'all track numbers on the situation you just described as to how many do wave conflict? No. So so you don't do y'all track any of that? Do you track the numbers on how many actually go to trial and how many are, adjudicated prior to?

That we do track. I don't have those numbers with me, but I can provide them.

Could you get those, please? And, for for all of the offices around the state? Sure. Yeah. Because would you agree that the vast majority are or planned?

Yes. Adjudication is ready before we get to yeah. That's it. Thank you.

And and the numbers you want are you want them in across the offices totally or just the conflicts for both? The

offices totally, please. Yes, ma'am. And real quick, prior to ARPA Mhmm. Where was the funding for this coming from, the 5,000,000?

Let's go. We'll have to address.

I will let k. Her answer that.

So so prior to ARPA, the state was funding that. ARPA is just a supplement to what the state is was funding.

Well, I understand that. Did the did the state pull back the funding entirely in Yes. Okay.

No, sir.

How do you do you recall what percentage the state was funding prior to ARPA?

Yes. And I've actually have a I have, some information here that I can give to you.

Okay. That would be that would be great.

I do appreciate that. I I have it here. I can give it to you before we leave.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you. And

and some oh.

No. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. You did ask a question about, the number of cases that plead out.

Yes, ma'am.

Even when they played out, we still have to appoint attorneys to them. We appoint attorneys from

the agency. Understand the public defender system and and how that works. Yes, ma'am. I just I just you know, somebody has 600 cases.

Yes.

In the normal taxpayer's mind, you know, they watch Perry Mason and other court shows, and they're thinking we're we're going through board hire and and setting a jury up and doing all this.

Yes.

But the vast majority of these cases are are are plat Plaid. If you will. Yes. Early into the process where she said she stayed there and she didn't and, you know, running into some of those, you know, go from a burglary to a criminal trespass and some things like that.

So I

just wanna be clear on that.

Okay. Thank you. But I

will say with respect to that, that even if it's a plea, because of, because of the nature of the world today, everything's on video. You know, you've got the body cams, everybody's got surveillance footage. And the attorneys have to watch all of that and view it all and listen to the jail calls. And that's hours and hours and hours of work even for a plea. No.

I understand the process, and I appreciate that. Thank you.

So And, just real quick. Just thank you all for coming because this helps us over the next few days make our determination. I have a couple more questions. First, I know in some circuits, historically, a judge would call on practice today practiced today or are there any other resources where you guys may appoint attorneys to represent certain defendants even if it's not a conflict?

I don't know that we run into that a lot because we have a qualification system that we use, and we go by that. Now if someone is qualified, is not qualified to be a public defender and they, are supposed to get an attorney that I know I run into in my days. And later on, they just cannot afford it. They might come to the public defender. I hope I'm answering your question.

Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense. Like, the the pro bono work.

Yes. So they get it pro bono and later on, it doesn't work out, it'll come to us. Is is that what you're saying?

Yeah. I understand. Yeah.

Yes, sir.

And then the last I I say the last question. I'm in law school. You're never you're always told never say this is my last question because I may have one. But what I think may be my last question, justice Peterson, his ruling last year, I think, in or around September that changed the way y'all determine what is a conflict and what is not. How is that gonna impact your need for, conflict cases?

Or excuse me, for appointing attorneys in conflict cases. Does that change?

Not yet. We're not sure how that process is going. I think the Supreme Court is working on it to determine what that process is going to look like. And, until that happens, we're not sure. But in house, we're working on a different kind of protocols to, reorganize, conflicts.

And, but to answer your question specifically, we we're gonna wait on the Supreme Court, to determine what the rules are going to be.

So y'all waiting on them?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Yeah. Alright. That's all the questions I have. Chair Monroe.

I I wanna understand something about the parity.

Yes, sir.

Currently, right now, are are public defenders making the same throughout the state?

As prosecutors?

Yes. As no. As no. No. As public defenders.

No, sir.

Okay. So the parity that we're talking about, are we talking about bringing public defenders in every circuit up to parity within the public defender arena?

No, sir. We're just saying state employees, state public defenders, and prosecutors who are paid by the state will make the same. That's what we're working on right now, sir.

So was any of this lack of parity created when there was additional funding, 10 to $20,000 put out about two years ago within within your budget? Some is that is that does anybody recall that?

Are you talking about h b nine eleven where, the assistant public defender received, recruitment and retention, also the CPDs, and there was a separate pot for this for this for us to move a step up. I think that was in twenty f y twenty three. 2023.

Yeah.

And did that number float between 10 and 20,000?

No. No. It did not? No.

No.

What's the starting pay for a public defender in Atlanta in Fulton County? Do you know?

110 Okay. Thousand.

And so if we move over to a circuit, say, what what circuit would encompass Chatham County? Do you know what the starting pay for a public defender over there would be? Or we'll just go to Coweta for the public defender Coweta, which is just outside. I guess it could be considered metro, but

I I can only speak to DeKalb. Okay. Our starting for our county attorneys is 90 right now.

Okay. And the starting for the ADA, are you familiar with that?

I do not know.

Okay. But you you would think it's it's higher?

It's probably well, in DeKalb County, we have parity on our on our county level.

On the county level. Uh-huh. Right. Okay. But we're talking about state Right.

Paid. Correct? Right. And so it's 70 or what is it for the

For the

for state paid ADA?

That I don't

Or state paid public defender.

72. 72.

72. Mhmm. And you're not sure if that's close to what the ADA would be making there?

Correct. I I believe it's more, but I don't know that to be

fair. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Before you go the just to follow-up, if you could please gather that information about the cases that are assigned. Mhmm. Whether it's a thousand dollars per case for everything, which I'm assume I'm I'm hoping it's a little different between a murder case and, you know, shoplifting. There should be some difference there. But I would like to see those contracts because we've got some tough decisions to make over the next few days, and we'd like to help as much as we can.

But Okay. I think the more information we have, the better off we'll be able to make an informed decision.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Yeah. Thank you so much.

Thank you all for coming this morning. Alright. With that, meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.