COEUR d’ALENE — What was billed as a possible cost-saving move and a fairer pay system has nearly doubled the county’s spending for conflict attorneys.

More than a dozen private attorneys are paid by the hour to represent defendants in criminal and civil matters when the Kootenai County Public Defender’s Office declares a conflict of interest. Prior to October 2012, a handful of conflict attorneys were paid a monthly lump sum.

Conflict attorney expenses exceeded $574,000 in 2013 — an increase of $280,000 from the previous year.

The average monthly expense of about $20,000 has increased to more than $45,000 since the new system was implemented.

Commissioner Jai Nelson, who pushed for the new system, said the budget blowup is because Public Defender John Adams’ office is declaring conflicts in an increasing number of cases.

While the number of new cases assigned to the public defender’s office actually decreased by 5 percent from 2012 to 2013, the number of cases being sent out of the office due to conflicts increased 45 percent.

“How that happens is not part of our process,” Nelson said. “The public defender determines whether there’s a conflict or not.”

Adams said nothing in the way his office determines conflicts has changed since he took over the office 19 years ago. If there is an ethical conflict, Adams said he declares a conflict.

“If the numbers are higher now because the caseload is higher, that’s one thing,” he said. “It’s certainly not because we’re declaring conflicts in any fashion than we’ve always conflicted.”

Just a couple months into the new system, in December 2012, commissioners attempted to rein in costs for conflict cases. Nelson sent a memo to Adams saying she had reviewed conflict case assignments and it appeared the majority of cases assigned were under “Tier 2” — more complex and higher paying cases — than “Tier 3.”

“The Board has requested that the priority cases conflicted out would be Tier 3,” Nelson wrote. She said that didn’t appear to be happening.

“The tier under which the county has categorized cases is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever in deciding whether we have a conflict on a case,” Adams responded.

MORE WORK, MORE PAY

The county had five contract public defense attorneys in December 2011 and all were upset that no matter how many cases they were assigned or how many hours they spent on a case, they were paid the same, flat rate.

The monthly payments ranged from $1,625 to $3,250 a month.

Nearly a year later, Nelson announced the county would begin paying conflict attorneys an hourly rate.

“Before, we didn’t know if they were underworked, overworked — we had nothing to track that,” Nelson said at the time. “I think this does a lot fairer job of paying per case.”

Conflict attorneys are paid $95 an hour for complex criminal cases involving charges like homicide, sex crimes, rape and felony drug cases. Attorneys handling crimes not falling into the “complex category” are paid $85 an hour.

Child protection and juvenile cases pay $75 an hour.

When the switch to hourly pay was announced, interest in the positions increased. Immediately, the county approved contracts with 15 new conflict attorneys. While some specialized in criminal defense or had previously worked for the public defender’s office, others advertised bankruptcy and real estate law as their specialties.

Before six months had passed, hiccups in the new system were obvious.

Clients complained their attorneys were unreachable, wouldn’t accept collect calls from jail and missed meetings, according to a memo Nelson forwarded to conflict attorneys in February 2013.

The memo from 1st District Judge John Mitchell said judges observed conflict attorneys showing up to court late, unprepared and “uncomfortable with the type of case they have been assigned.”

Before, Adams’ office supervised the conflict attorneys and handled case assignments. Under the new system, his involvement ends once his office declares a conflict and informs the Trial Court Administrator’s office.

Nonetheless, Adams said his office fields calls when someone is unhappy with or can’t reach their conflict attorney.

“If a client who was conflicted out of the office has an issue or complaint with their attorney, I can’t address that,” Adams said. “If I could address that, I wouldn’t have conflicted the case out.”

First District Judge Benjamin Simpson works with a volunteer board of three private attorneys who weigh in on the qualifications of applicants. They forward their recommendation to commissioners who, ultimately, determine who is hired.

“The commissioners are in the position of entering the contracts,” Simpson said, “and their attorneys can’t weigh in because they’re part of the prosecutor’s office and the public defenders office can’t weigh in because they have a conflict.”

Simpson said the committee has suggested to commissioners that they contract with someone to supervise the conflict attorney program.

“This is a concept that we have discussed and are considering,” Nelson said. “To date, nothing has been implemented.”

A CONFLICT DECLARED

Nelson and Adams have been at odds since she first became the board of commissioners’ liaison with the public defender’s office.

In a September 2012 evaluation of Adams’ job performance, Nelson said he needed to work on being more respectful toward the board of commissioners.

“The relationship between you and the board has continued to deteriorate over the last year and there have been several instances where you have communicated with the board members in an angry, disrespectful and unprofessional manner,” she wrote.

While Adams’ staff had given his performance ratings of “9” or “10” in the areas of job understanding, job performance, productivity, dependability and efficiency and cooperation, Nelson gave him an overall score of “5.”

Six months later, after Adams made a formal complaint against Nelson accusing her of harassment, commissioners voted unanimously to end his contract in the fall.

Adams said commissioners wanted to put someone in the position that they could control. Nelson said “people don’t own these offices.”

The legal community erupted in protest, with former Kootenai County Prosecutor Bill Douglas saying the firing was “shameful” and describing Adams as “the best public defender in the history of Kootenai County.”

Before two weeks had passed, commissioners rescinded their decision.

The fallout from the firing hasn’t stopped.

Adams filed a $1.5 million tort claim against the county in September, accusing the county of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Idaho Human Rights Act. Commissioners, the suit says, fired Adams after he told Commissioner Todd Tondee he was battling cancer.

In December, he sent county commissioners a letter congratulating them for voting to give themselves raises.

“Also, I’m happy to see that you have given a raise to ... Barry McHugh, our Prosecuting Attorney,” Adams wrote. “However, once again this year you have not given a raise to the public defender.”

Adams’ office has been recognized as the best public defender’s office in Idaho. Adams received two prestigious awards in the past year: The Idaho State Bar’s Professionalism Award and the Dave Judy Civil Rights Award.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho selected Adams for the civil rights award saying despite flaws in the state’s public defense system, he has been able to provide “the best defense delivery system possible.”

WHERE THE MONEY ISN’T

There’s more money in prosecuting crime than defending the accused, Adams says, especially in areas like North Idaho without organized crime.

“My attorneys aren’t in this to make money,” he said. “They do this because they feel it’s the area of law they want to make their careers. They wanted to be trial attorneys. They want to defend the people against government accusations.”

For years, he’s fought for parity in pay between attorneys in his office and those in the prosecuting attorney’s office.

Looking at numbers alone, it appears some conflict attorneys can make more in a year than the county’s deputy public defenders.

Attorney Shawn Walsh, a Coeur d’Alene attorney who used to work for Adams, has received more than $80,000 under the new pay system.

“I have deputies that work full-time,” Adams said. “They’re not 8 to 5 workers. They work full-time, 6 or 7 days a week, hour after hour, and they aren’t making anywhere near $80,000. I’m sure if they’re aware of it, they’re not happy.”

Walsh said the numbers are deceiving.

One case he handled, which was eventually dismissed by prosecutors, lasted 27 months. It was a unique situation, he said, with the bulk of the money he received going toward paralegal costs and expert witnesses.

“Each penny of the special expenses was authorized by the courts,” he said. The commissioners didn’t want to spend the money, he said, but the courts — which are under the state judicial branch — ordered them to pay.

Conflict cases, he said, represent a small amount of the cases he handles and a small amount of his income.

“I believe very much in 6th Amendment representation,” Walsh said. “Some of the most rewarding cases I’ve worked on are where my client can’t pay me, but I advocate for them anyway.”

The jury might be out for some, but Walsh said he thinks the county’s approach to paying conflict attorneys is an improvement over the old system.

“The idea of paying someone per hour is good because of this,” Walsh said. “Before they gave you a flat rate whether you worked hard for your client or sat on your laurels. The old system only worked because attorneys worked hard.”

There was an incentive under the flat monthly rate, he said, to plead out cases instead of going to trial.

Lansing Haynes, the district administrative judge, said things appear to be running smoothly now.

“I don’t perceive there’s been a real groundswell of problems,” Haynes said. “There’s not a systems problem. From time to time there are individual problems. County commissioners can choose not to contract with that person anymore.”

Reporter Keith Cousins contributed to this report.