Prosecutors and Public Defenders Need Raises. Now.
By Karen J. Mathis
Daily Journal/Focus Column
March 6, 2007

A bill introduced recently by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., provides a winning solution for all of us concerned that the low wages paid prosecutors and public defenders, along with the high cost of law school, are undermining confidence in the integrity of our criminal-justice system.

As introduced, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007 brings bipartisan support to a solution for a problem faced by jurisdictions nationwide: attracting and retaining qualified lawyers for public-service careers.

Named for John Reid Justice, a former South Carolina solicitor and former president of the National District Attorneys Association, the bill establishes a student-loan repayment-assistance program for law-school graduates who agree to remain employed for at least three years as state or local criminal prosecutors or as state, local or federal public defenders.

Eligible lawyers would receive student-loan-debt repayments of as much as $10,000 a year. With an option to renew for a second three-year commitment, they could receive $60,000 toward repayment of their student loans. Lawyers who fail to honor their service commitments would repay the government any money received.

Communities are the first to suffer when qualified law-school graduates turn to higher starting salaries offered by private firms and away from public-service salaries in the mid-$40,000 range offered to new prosecutors and public defenders. But with an average loan debt of $80,000 for graduates of private law schools and $50,000 for graduates of public law schools, new lawyers often have no choice. Two-thirds of law-school students say their education loans prohibit them from even considering public-service positions.

In prepared testimony about the problem, Michael P. Judge, chief defender at the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office - the nation's oldest and largest such agency - wrote:

"I see this situation in defender offices throughout California. For example, 83 percent of California chief defenders surveyed reported that recruiting has been negatively impacted because of student-loan burdens. The residents of Riverside County are saddled with 59 vacancies out of 149 authorized public-defender positions. In Los Angeles, the number of deputies citing financial reasons for their decision to leave the public defender's office has almost tripled in the past three years, and the number who reject job offers has increased by almost 2½ times in the past three years."

Supporting Judge's perception is Bernard Murray, president of the Prosecutors Bar Association and chief of criminal prosecutions for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in Chicago, who wrote:

"[We] are faced with enormous hurdles in attracting first-rate candidates to pursue a career with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. We simply cannot afford to pay new assistants a salary high enough to offset the enormous debt load that follows them from their law-school graduation."

More compelling are the words of law-school graduates struggling to create lives with little disposable income. Trisha Newman, a public defender in California, wrote:

"It took me six months to save up to buy furniture. ... Not everyone becomes an attorney to get rich. Some do it because they actually want to help people, and in my experience, the district attorneys and public defenders I am associate[d] and friends with do it because they love it, as do I. But that help comes at the cost of sacrificing the ability to live."

When communities are unable to recruit or retain public-service lawyers, justice suffers from lengthy delays, increasing the possibility that the innocent will be sent to jail, crimes will go unprosecuted, and the guilty will go free.

The rape victim hides, knowing that her attacker, out on bail, still walks the streets. The gangbanger, emboldened by a lack of follow-up on charges against him, commits more violent crimes. The hourly worker, unable to make bail, puts his job and family in jeopardy as he waits for his day in court to prove his innocence.

When these situations happen, they create a lack of confidence in our system that erodes the foundation of our society.

Law enforcement rightly is - and should remain - a state and local concern, but the federal government has a responsibility to make sure our criminal-justice system functions effectively. To do so, it needs talented - and experienced - lawyers.

No longer can we ignore the difficulty encountered by prosecutors and public defenders in hiring and keeping good lawyers because of law-school debt. We cannot allow public-service law to become an unaffordable career choice for sons and daughters of middle-class families.

The John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007 is a step toward ensuring that our nation's criminal-justice system functions effectively, with capable lawyers committed to public-safety legal careers. Without the ability to attract and retain qualified lawyers dedicated to carrying out our laws, we will not have true justice for ourselves or our fellow citizens.

Karen J. Mathis, a Denver business and estate lawyer, is president of the American Bar Association.