This bill amends existing law (RCW 10.101.030) to require each county or city subject to that chapter to adopt standards for the delivery of public defense services. The requirement applies regardless of whether public defense services are provided by contract counsel, assigned counsel, or a public defender office. The bill specifies topics that the local standards must address, including compensation of counsel; duties and responsibilities of counsel; caseload limits and types of cases; responsibility for expert witness fees and other costs of representation; administrative expenses; support services; reporting of attorney activity and vouchers; training; supervision, monitoring, and evaluation of attorneys; substitution or assignment procedures; limitations on private practice for contract attorneys; attorney qualifications; disposition of client complaints; causes for termination or removal of attorneys or contracts; and nondiscrimination. It also directs that, if practicable, locally adopted standards should comply with Washington state court rules for public defense services and may incorporate Washington State Bar Association–endorsed standards that do not conflict with those court rules. This is a procedural and administrative change to existing statute rather than the creation of a new crime or a change in criminal penalties. The extracted text does not include enforcement mechanisms, timelines for adoption, penalties for noncompliance, or new definitions. The bill was prefiled 12/17/25, read for the first time 01/12/26, and referred to the Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary.

If enacted, counties and cities that provide public defense would have to set local standards governing how public defense is delivered—covering pay, lawyer duties and qualifications, caseload limits, who pays for experts and other case costs, administrative and support services, training, oversight, reporting, limits on private practice for contract attorneys, and how complaints and contract terminations are handled. That will directly affect local elected legislative bodies (which must adopt the standards) and the people who deliver defense services (public defender offices, assigned counsel, and contract attorneys): counties and cities may face higher or reallocated costs for compensation, expert fees, training, supervision, and reporting systems, and individual attorneys may face tighter limits on caseloads, private practice, and more oversight and documentation requirements. Key implementation details are missing from the provided text, so how quickly standards must be adopted, who enforces them, and whether additional funding will be provided are unclear; local practices and budgets could therefore change in significant but variable ways depending on decisions by each county or city.