SACRAMENTO, CA — Assembly Bill 690, a measure that seeks to eliminate flat-fee contracts for indigent defense in California, has cleared two major hurdles in the legislature, passing through both the Assembly Public Safety Committee and the powerful Appropriations Committee. The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, aims to bring greater oversight, transparency, and fairness to California’s fragmented public defense system, which currently allows counties to contract with private attorneys using fixed fees regardless of caseload volume or complexity.
According to the official Assembly floor analysis, “This bill seeks to address concerns that flat fee contracts create incentives for defense attorneys to limit the time spent on each case, undermining the quality of representation and contributing to wrongful convictions and mass incarceration.” AB 690 would prohibit courts or counties from entering into any new indigent defense contracts that use flat-fee or per-case compensation models beginning January 1, 2027, unless such contracts include built-in adjustments for workload and costs and comply with standards adopted by the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD).
The bill would also require all such contracts to be submitted to the OSPD for review every two years. According to the bill’s legislative digest, “The OSPD shall develop and adopt standards for indigent defense contracts, including guidelines related to attorney qualifications, support services, maximum caseloads, and conflict-free representation. All indigent defense contracts must comply with these standards.”
The momentum behind AB 690 follows a wave of reform activity earlier this year. In March, the OSPD published its Implementation Guide to California Standards for Contract and Panel Defense Systems, a document that explicitly condemned flat-fee contracts as structurally flawed. “Flat fee systems — particularly those that require representation in an unlimited number of cases for a fixed fee — are inherently flawed and risk incentivizing poor-quality defense services,” the guide states. It continues, “A fixed compensation system that fails to adjust for case volume, complexity, or workload considerations creates an unavoidable conflict of interest between financial self-interest and client advocacy.”
The guide highlights several systemic failures associated with flat-fee systems, including the lack of investigative resources, inadequate time for client consultation, and financial pressures that discourage going to trial. It argues that these deficiencies not only violate professional standards but also raise constitutional concerns under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Shortly after the OSPD’s guidance was published, The Wren Collective released a comprehensive report entitled Selling Justice Short, which examined public defense contracts in dozens of California counties. According to the report, “Flat-fee contract systems are overwhelmingly used in counties with the highest incarceration rates. Of the ten California counties with the highest incarceration rates, eight use flat-fee contracting as their primary public defense model. All of the top five do.” The report further noted, “In counties that use flat-fee contracts, there is an average disparity of 159% in funding allocated to prosecution versus public defense.”
The Wren Collective’s analysis included detailed examples of contracts that paid attorneys as little as $300 per case with no cap on annual case volume, no requirement for investigators or support staff, and no allowances for travel or expert witnesses. One such contract, the report notes, “required the attorney to handle all misdemeanor appointments in the county for a flat fee of $75,000 per year, including weekends and holidays, with no additional reimbursement of costs.” The report concluded, “These contracts are not compatible with effective representation or constitutional guarantees. They encourage volume over quality, and speed over justice.”
AB 690 has drawn strong support from public defense reform advocates, civil rights organizations, and legal scholars. In letters to the legislature, the ACLU of California, Californians for Safety and Justice, and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association all urged lawmakers to approve the bill. Supporters argue that California’s system of county-based funding, combined with a lack of centralized oversight, has allowed these deficient practices to persist.
California is one of only four states in the nation that does not provide direct state oversight or funding for trial-level indigent defense. The state instead delegates responsibility to its 58 counties, resulting in a patchwork of systems that vary widely in quality, staffing, and funding. Twenty-five counties do not have a public defender’s office and instead rely primarily on private contract attorneys — many of them paid through flat-fee agreements.
As documented by the OSPD’s Indigent Defense Improvement Division, California spends significantly more on prosecution than public defense. In its analysis of fiscal year 2021–2022 data, the division found that counties allocated 70–80% more on average for prosecutors than for defenders. In counties that rely on flat-fee contracting, this gap widens even further.
Despite the support, AB 690 has faced opposition from some local governments. The Kings County Board of Supervisors submitted a formal letter opposing the bill, arguing, “This bill eliminates counties’ ability to control costs by negotiating flat rate contracts, while providing no additional funding. The bill imposes unfunded mandates at a time when counties are already under intense financial pressure.”
The Assembly floor analysis acknowledged these concerns, stating, “Opponents argue that AB 690 could impose additional fiscal pressures on rural counties without providing state resources. Supporters respond that ensuring effective legal representation is a constitutional obligation and should not be contingent on cost-saving mechanisms that undermine justice.”
