The California Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 18 that public defenders can face malpractice lawsuits, much the same as private defense lawyers. Public defenders, who represent the poor, do not have the same immunity to lawsuits as do prosecutors, judges and other public servants, the high court in San Francisco decided unanimously.
According to the Associated Press, the case involved a Los Angeles man, Glenn Barner, who was convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to 16 years in prison. He was later declared innocent and released from prison after one year. Barner filed a lawsuit for legal malpractice against public defender Julie Leeds, whom he claimed knew of an FBI memo identifying the true robber, but she did not follow up on the memo.
The court ruling allows Barner to proceed with the lawsuit. Many local governments pressed the case that they could fall victim to huge liabilities if public defenders are subject to malpractice suits, according to the AP.
“Public defenders personally would not be exposed to liability because the city or county where the public attorney worked would be ultimately responsible for judgments and legal bills. Even so, the high court’s decision isn’t expected to usher in a flood of liability for California’s local governments,” the AP reported. This is due in part to the fact that in order to file a malpractice suit against a public defender or private attorney, defendants must first establish their innocence.
Topics Lawsuits California Legislation
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Marsh McLennan Agency to Buy Fisher Brown Bottrell for About $316M 
Chubb to Acquire MGA Healthy Paws From Aon 
AIG General Insurance Chairman McElroy to Retire May 1 
FBI Says Chinese Hackers Preparing to Attack US Infrastructure 
