Public defender exploratory board takes shape

State law is right to prohibit judges from serving on commissions overseeing public defender's offices. After all, the attorneys who work for public defenders are going to be arguing cases before those very same judges. They shouldn't have to worry about whether their actions in court, including challenging a judge's ruling, will anger one or more of their bosses. Likewise, it makes sense that municipal law directors, prosecutors and their employees, as well as court staff, shouldn't serve on such commissions because they would be dealing with public defenders in a professional capacity. They, too, would have competing interests from those of public defenders, whose primary responsibility is to defend their clients. What the law doesn't do, near as we can tell, is bar judges from being involved in exploring the creation of a public defender's office, as is the case in Lorain County. (Right now, the county pays private attorneys to represent indigent defendants.) That seems appropriate because judges are charged with ensuring that criminal defendants receive a fair trial. They are therefore well positioned to examine whether a public defender's office would serve that goal. That helps explain why Chris Cook, the presiding judge of county Common Pleas Court, picked Elyria Municipal Court Judge Gary Bennett as one of the county judges' two representatives to the newly formed county board charged with exploring creation of a public defender's office. Commissioner Dave Moore said last week that he, too, wanted the commissioners to name a judge or magistrate as one of their three representatives on the board. They didn't do so because of confusion over whether judicial officers could serve. The commissioners named former Amherst Treasurer Rich Ramsey and Grafton Township Fiscal Officer Amy Richards as their two other representatives last week. They intended to fill the third slot this week. (Cook's second appointment was Zachary Simonoff, the Lorain County Bar Association's treasurer.) All those appointees bring something to the table. Richards is an accountant by trade, while Ramsey is a former elected official and a lawyer who runs his own law office. Simonoff also is a lawyer in private practice who takes appointed cases. He has publicly opposed the creation of a county public defender's office. Bennett is a wise choice because he had extensive experience in private practice before he took the bench. He also briefly served as county prosecutor, which gave him valuable experience running a government legal office. It's also to the good that the commissioners aren't rushing to a decision about whether a public defender is the right way to go. A board to explore the idea is a good way to accomplish that. There are two key issues that the board must confront. The first — and more important — is to ensure that criminal defendants receive the same representation as they do under the existing system, if not better representation. If a public defender's office is created, it should be led by an experienced criminal defense lawyer in addition to being properly staffed and funded. Moore said last year that he expected that lawyers working for a county public defender's office would make about $65,000 per year apiece plus benefits. Would that compensation be enough to draw experienced lawyers or would it lead only newly minted lawyers to take jobs there? The second issue goes to why the county is looking into the creation of a public defender's office in the first place: cost. Moore argued last year that the annual cost to run the office would be around $1.2 million. That's far less than the nearly $3.7 million that the county reimbursed court-appointed lawyers between May 2024 and April 2025, according to figures Simonoff shared with us last year. Of that, the state reimbursed the county a little more than $3 million, a reimbursement rate of roughly 83 percent. In some prior years, the reimbursement rate was as high as 100 percent. Perhaps Moore, who, like the other commissioners, has publicly worried about the county's finances, is correct that money would be saved by switching to public defenders. That will depend in part on whether the staff is large enough to keep up with demand and how much the state reimburses the county. It's also fair to recall, as Simonoff pointed out last year, that even in the 26 Ohio counties that have public defenders' offices, about half of the cases still end up assigned to court-appointed lawyers. That's because of conflicts, staffing and complex cases that require expertise that not all lawyers have, such as capital murder cases. That, too, could drive up the cost beyond Moore's prediction. Those issues were discussed in 2002 and 2011 when the county also examined creating a public defender's office. In both instances, the decision was made to stick with court-appointed lawyers. Until the board completes its work, it's hard to say whether this time will be any different. Regardless of the outcome, the idea of a public defender's office is still worth exploring.