Despite its reputation as a progressive leader on criminal justice reform, California has long failed to fulfill one of the most basic constitutional rights: the right to counsel. Now, with the introduction of the Fair Representation Act (AB 690) by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, and amid growing public pressure, the state may finally be forced to confront its broken indigent defense system.
At a recent press briefing hosted by The Wren Collective, a panel of public defenders, policy experts, and legislators gathered to address the structural failures that have left tens of thousands of Californians—particularly low-income Black and Brown residents—without meaningful legal representation. The briefing painted a stark picture of a state that champions fairness in theory while allowing injustice to fester in practice.
A Constitutional Crisis in Plain Sight
California remains one of the only states that provides no guaranteed funding for trial-level public defense. As Kate Chatfield, Executive Director of the California Public Defenders Association, explained, the state has offloaded its constitutional responsibility onto counties—many of which are too under-resourced to provide adequate representation.
“The state says, ‘Counties, this is your problem,’” Chatfield said. “But many counties, especially rural ones, don’t have the tax base to fund robust defense. Without state intervention, the system is set up to fail.”
In some counties, public defenders operate with budgets half the size of local district attorneys’ offices. In others, there’s no institutional public defender at all—only private attorneys working under flat-fee contracts that incentivize quick pleas over vigorous defense.
The Flat-Fee Trap
These flat-fee contracts, a key target of AB 690, pay defense attorneys a fixed rate per case—regardless of complexity. That means a multi-year felony case pays the same as a simple misdemeanor, creating a system where public defense becomes a volume business. According to Schultz, eight of the ten California counties with the highest incarceration rates rely on flat-fee contracts, and all of the top five do.
“This system creates a perverse incentive to plead out cases quickly,” Schultz said. “It’s the opposite of justice.”
Brendon Woods, Chief Public Defender of Alameda County, agreed. “Flat fees are about money, not people,” he said. “They reward speed, not advocacy. They’re bad for our clients, bad for our profession, and bad for public safety.”
Community Harm and Racial Disparities
The consequences ripple far beyond individual cases. Raj Jayadev, founder of Silicon Valley De-Bug, described how underfunded defense devastates entire families and communities. His organization supports families as they navigate the court system, and he’s seen firsthand how lack of representation leads to separation, incarceration, and generational harm.
“A strong, well-resourced public defender is the difference between someone being home with their kids or locked in a cell,” Jayadev said. “That’s not an exaggeration—it’s reality.”
Jayadev also highlighted a “two-tiered” system of justice even within public defense: one tier for those in counties with full-service public defender offices, and another for those in counties reliant on underpaid, overworked flat-fee contractors. “Geography should not determine your constitutional rights,” he said.
Juvenile Justice: A Lost Opportunity
Professor Sean Kennedy of Loyola Law School noted that the lack of funding is especially tragic in juvenile courts, where early intervention can redirect lives.
“At the Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, we invest in holistic representation—education advocacy, social work, therapeutic support,” Kennedy said. “But that takes time, staff, and resources. If you’re paid a flat fee to ‘handle’ a juvenile case, you’re not going to do any of that. And that’s a missed opportunity to change a young person’s trajectory.”
Kennedy warned that California ranks near the top in per capita spending on incarceration and near the bottom in K–12 education funding—a reflection, he said, of deeply misplaced priorities.
What AB 690 Would Do
The Fair Representation Act seeks to ban flat-fee contracts for indigent defense and establish basic statewide standards for counties that contract out public defense services. The bill would not only require fair compensation, but also enforce manageable caseloads and support services that ensure adequate representation.
“AB 690 is about fairness, about giving everyone a fighting chance,” Schultz said. “When someone’s liberty is at stake, they deserve a real defense—not a rushed plea deal.”
The bill passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and now heads to the Appropriations Committee on May 23. Advocates say this could be a turning point—if lawmakers treat the moment with urgency.
The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher
The briefing took place against a backdrop of increasing state-level crackdowns on immigrants, encampment sweeps targeting unhoused residents, and a surge in incarceration under Proposition 36. Yet none of these systems include adequate funding for defense, ensuring that the most vulnerable Californians face the criminal legal system alone.
“We are in a perfect storm,” said Chatfield. “And we are nowhere near prepared.”
Woods echoed the sentiment: “You want public safety? Fund public defense. We are part of the public safety infrastructure. We keep families together, we connect people to services, we give people second chances. That’s what real safety looks like.”
A Call to Action
While many panelists were critical of the current state of California’s justice system, they also emphasized that change is possible—and urgent. The panel closed with a reminder that indigent defense isn’t just a technical issue or budget line—it’s about whether the state lives up to the promise of equal justice under law.
“We’re not asking for special treatment,” Jayadev said. “We’re asking for a fair fight. And that starts with a lawyer who has the time, training, and support to actually fight for you.”
