The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in In re Detention of M.E. & R.S., filed March 19, 2026, addresses a major question for civil commitment and public defense practice: are the caseload limits in the Standards for Indigent Defense mandatory, and can a trial court order counsel assignments that effectively exceed them? The court answered the first question yes and the second question no—while also holding that the trial court properly ordered King County’s Department of Public Defense (DPD) to provide counsel in the cases before it.
Background of the Case
These consolidated cases arose from involuntary treatment act (ITA) proceedings in King County. People facing involuntary civil commitment under chapter 71.05 RCW are entitled to appointed counsel, and no one in the case disputed that right. The dispute was over who had authority to provide that representation and whether DPD could resist appointment orders when its ITA attorneys had already reached their caseload limits.
The opinion explains that ITA commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty and carries significant due process concerns. Washington law provides appointed counsel at multiple stages of ITA proceedings, and King County ordinarily provides that representation through DPD, an independent department within the county executive branch. The county charter gives DPD the duty to provide counsel for indigent persons, including respondents in mental health commitment proceedings, while protecting DPD from interference by other elected officials.
Why the Caseload Crisis Reached the Supreme Court
At the time of the underlying events in spring and summer 2024, DPD’s ITA unit had 14 staff attorneys and 2 supervisors. DPD tried to hire more attorneys and also contracted with private counsel, but it still could not keep up with demand. Over a 12-month period, DPD was assigned about 4,901 ITA cases—enough work for more than 19 full-time attorneys at the applicable limit, even though DPD did not have that many available attorneys.
Under the Standards for Indigent Defense following CrR 3.1, the annual caseload for civil commitment matters should not exceed 250 cases per full-time attorney. DPD notified the superior court that its ITA lawyers were hitting capacity before the end of each month and said it would not assign attorneys to additional cases without court orders. The superior court then issued orders requiring DPD to provide counsel in dozens of pending ITA matters, and DPD complied while challenging the orders.
Indigent Defense Caseload Limits Are Mandatory
What the Court Held
The Supreme Court held that the caseload limits in the Standards for Indigent Defense are mandatory. It rejected the argument that the word “should” in the standards made the limits merely advisory in this context. Reading the rule in light of its language, context, and purpose, the court concluded that trial courts do not have authority to order defense attorneys to violate those limits.
That is the most important statewide takeaway from the case. For Washington lawyers, judges, and counties, the opinion makes clear that indigent defense caseload limits are not aspirational targets. They are binding constraints that protect the quality of representation and the rights of people entitled to counsel.
Why the Trial Court Still Did Not Exceed Its Authority
Even though the caseload limits are mandatory, the Supreme Court still affirmed the portions of the superior court’s orders directed to DPD. Why? Because the trial court did not specifically order any identified attorney to exceed the applicable caseload cap. Instead, it ordered the entity responsible for furnishing counsel—DPD—to provide counsel, while deliberately avoiding interference with DPD’s internal process for deciding which lawyer would take the case and how assignments would be managed.
The opinion also relied on GR 42, which protects the independence of public defense. Judicial officers may not manage or oversee public defense services. The superior court respected that boundary by refusing to dictate who the attorney should be, where that attorney should come from, or how DPD should handle workloads. Because the court left those operational choices to DPD, the Supreme Court held there was no improper judicial interference and no order requiring violation of the caseload standards.
What Happened to the King County Executive
The Supreme Court reached a different conclusion as to the King County Executive. It held that, under the King County Charter, DPD—not the county executive or other elected officials—has the exclusive authority to provide appointed counsel in these ITA cases. For that reason, the court reversed in part and vacated the portions of the trial court’s orders directed at the executive.
Why This Case Matters in Washington
This opinion matters well beyond King County. It confirms that Washington courts must respect indigent defense caseload limits, even when constitutional or statutory rights to counsel are urgently at stake. At the same time, it emphasizes that the government entity legally responsible for providing counsel cannot simply avoid that duty because staffing is difficult. The court did not decide broader remedies for future shortages, calling those issues premature in this moot case, but it drew an important line: courts cannot order lawyers to exceed mandatory caseload caps, yet courts may still require the proper defense agency to fulfill its obligation to provide counsel.
For Washington practitioners, In re Detention of M.E. & R.S. is now a key case on the intersection of ITA proceedings, public defense independence, court authority, and workload protections.
Contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253-720-9304 for guidance on your legal matter.
Additional Resources
A Guide to Mandatory Minimums for Car Insurance in Washington
Learn the required insurance coverage in Washington and how failing to meet minimums can lead to legal consequences.
https://blanfordlaw.com/a-guide-to-mandatory-minimums-for-car-insurance-in-washington/
Home Detention Conditions in Washington
Explains how home detention works, including restrictions, monitoring, and compliance requirements in Washington cases.
https://blanfordlaw.com/home-detention-conditions-wa/
State v. Avila-Avina
A key Washington case addressing unlawful detention and the suppression of evidence obtained through constitutional violations.
https://blanfordlaw.com/state-v-avila-avina-a-landmark-ruling-on-unlawful-detention-and-evidence-admissibility/
Right to Counsel in Washington (Charlton)
Discusses Washington case law on the right to counsel and when that right attaches in criminal proceedings.
https://blanfordlaw.com/right-to-counsel-washington-charlton/
Washington Right to Counsel Case
Provides an overview of the right to counsel in Washington and how courts protect defendants’ constitutional rights.
https://blanfordlaw.com/washington-right-to-counsel-case/