San Mateo County OKs private defender contract

Established in 1968, the PDP provides indigent defense representation to all people facing charges from the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. The new contract, covering services from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2028, will enable PDP staff to provide individuals with support for their criminal cases, mental illness, addiction and housing insecurity.

The program has grown and evolved since the county last adopted a PDP contract, Maguire said, including hiring three new management positions and nearly 30 new social workers who oversee more than 700 cases a year. 

The staff additions are part of PDP leadership’s effort to comply with a 2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report, which evaluated whether recommendations from a 2015 jury report calling for improved finances, operations, county oversight and legal representation were implemented. The 2020 report still recommended increased county oversight on finances, improvements to PDP services and an independent review to evaluate the program and estimate costs to improve the PDP model.

Since that report came out, Maguire said the department has created a training program for new attorneys, increased outreach and improved data collection by working with national experts who advised the department on the type of data to collect and updating its systems to do so. 

Other efforts are still in the works including hiring a data analytics team, developing earlier representation of incarcerated clients and expanding immigration services. Maguire said PDP staff has found the current system for connecting with incarcerated clients unreliable. PDP also currently contracts immigration support from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. 

“We’ve recently come to believe that we could do better,” Maguire said about seeking to hire an in-house immigration attorney. 

But Silicon Valley De-Bug, a San Jose organization helping people navigate the criminal justice system in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and advocating for system changes, argued both in a letter to the board and during public comment that the association has not provided quality representation and should not be granted a long-term contract. 

Instead, it suggested the board adopt a shorter probationary contract no longer than six months and require that the association improve its reporting standards, provide monthly reports on issues with the program, institute mandated surveys once cases close and develop a memo detailing PDP’s ability to provide quality and effective representation. 

De-Bug also asked that the county hold a study session on the private defender program to explore the differences between a public and private defender program. The county remains the only California county with more than 500,000 residents that does not have a public defender’s office, instead contracting out services.

“Competent indigent defense is not just assigning the case to an attorney and wiping your hands clean. Management must be proactive for the services to be up to par. It includes checking in on the case, helping edit motions, holding collaborative brainstorm sessions and disciplining attorneys for low-quality work,” read the letter. “By their own admission, management in PDP plays none of these constructive, collaborative and necessary roles in pulling together a competent defense that every other county in the Bay Area considers the standard besides San Mateo County.”

Maguire told supervisors she was shocked and disappointed by the letter and its characterization of PDP’s work, and asserted PDP have had a strong and productive working relationship. In addition to responding to emails and phone calls and participating in legal nights, Maguire said a PDP managing attorney will meet with De-Bug for an hour a month to hear about their concerns. 

Ultimately, the board approved the contract as proposed while also requiring that PDP work with county staff to develop metrics for determining the program’s success. PDP will also be required to return in 2 1/2 to report on their findings. 

Supervisor Ray Mueller, who proposed the additional requirements, said the data will be vital in helping the county understand how its program compares to other jurisdictions. 

Supervisor Noelia Corzo was the lone vote against approving the agreement. She initially proposed that the association be required to return within a year to provide an update rather than moving forward with the 2 1/2 year review period. 

The board did agree to require the association to provide an annual update in the future. Ultimately though, Mueller said the longer review period would allow PDP to gather data on more long-term cases and provide a fuller picture of the program’s success. 

“The real elephant in the room for me is not De-Bug. The real elephant in the room is we don’t have a public defender [program], we have a private defender program different from many jurisdictions,” Mueller said during the Tuesday meeting. “I don’t want to make a decision based on a listening session. I really want the data.”