The Maryland Office of the Public Defender is failing to verify whether clients really are eligible for taxpayer-funded counsel, according to a new state audit.
While applicants seeking a public defender are required to list monthly expenses to prove they cannot afford a private attorney, the agency does not require documentation that substantiates the information.
And while the agency has the authority to use third-party data — by requesting confidential information from an applicant or by accessing other government data — no such verifications are being conducted, the report from the state’s Office of Legislative Audits said.
“You could have people with assets that are getting free legal representation at the taxpayers’ expense that shouldn’t be,” said Bruce Myers, the legislative auditor with the Maryland Office of Legislative Audits.
Myers couldn’t point to specific cases of legal counsel going to unqualified people, saying the audit didn’t examine that, but said the Office of the Public Defender could do more to make sure it doesn’t happen. “They have a lot of tools at their expense to tighten this up,” he said.
The audit also reported that the public defender’s office erroneously paid about $66,000 in wages to former employees. In one case, an employee remained on the payroll 168 days after leaving, resulting in an overpayment of $20,560. Overpayments of $35,600 were made to six employees when the agency wrongly calculated unused annual leave time.
The Office of the Public Defender provides free legal services to poor clients facing jail time or a fine greater than $500, though administrative fees of $50 for adults and $25 for juveniles are assessed.
The agency changed
its eligibility procedures in 2010 — after the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a court ruling saying the agency was erroneously rejecting potential clients — by requiring applicants to list expenses in addition to income and assets.
In a letter responding to the audit, Public Defender Paul B. DeWolfe said the agency will revise its policies, explaining that the 2010 court decision has had “significant impact” on the agency’s process of accepting new clients.
