UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court to hear oral argument Sept. 16 in Bettendorf in a case involving a shortage of attorneys available to represent indigent criminal defendants

by Rox Laird | September 12, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court on Sept 16 will hear oral argument in Bettendorf in a case that poses the question of whether a district court can deny a State Public Defender’s effort to withdraw as counsel representing an indigent defendant because the Public Defender’s office is overloaded with cases.

The oral argument will be heard in State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court for Scott County at 7 p.m. at the Bettendorf High School auditorium, 3333 18th St. The oral argument, open to the public, is one in a series of cases heard in communities around the state as the Iowa Supreme Court seeks to more broadly expose the appellate process to the public. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in this case.]

The issue in this case touches on concerns Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen has recently discussed publicly about a shortage of attorneys to represent criminal defendants who cannot afford to hire counsel but who have a constitutional right to be represented.

Iowa has two options for handling indigent defense cases: Attorneys from the State Public Defender, or attorneys in private practice who have contracts with the state or noncontract attorneys in private practice who accept appointments by the district court. In this case, the Davenport office of the State Public Defender, which had been appointed by the Scott County District Court to represent defendants in several criminal cases, filed motions with the trial court in each case stating the office was overloaded, that it could not take the cases, and directed the court to appoint private counsel as provided in Iowa Code Section 815.10.

In each case, the district court denied the public defender’s motion to withdraw as counsel, citing a lack of available private-practice attorneys and specifically appointed the supervisor of the Davenport public defender’s office to represent the criminal defendants.

In its brief filed with the Iowa Supreme Court, the State Public Defender argues the district court’s actions were unlawful, citing Iowa Code Section 13B.9, which establishes the powers and duties of local public defenders and governs referrals to outside counsel. And the Public Defender cites section 815.10, which says the district court shall appoint substitute counsel when the local Public Defender withdraws from a case. The brief emphasizes the word “shall.”

“Any rationalization made by the court to circumvent their duty to appoint an attorney where the local office is unable to accept the case is beyond the consideration of the court. Once the office provides notice to the court that the case is being returned, the court ‘shall’, or has the duty to, appoint a substitute attorney,” the Public Defender wrote.

In response, the Iowa Attorney General, representing the Scott County District Court, argues in a brief that the Iowa Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal in part because the State Public Defender skipped necessary procedural steps in district court before filing the direct appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.

In any case, the State argues the Scott County District Court acted within the requirements of the law. The trial court has a role in determining if, in fact, the local Public Defender’s office was overloaded before granting withdrawal. That, the State argues, is particularly relevant in Scott County where the district court has utilized all available attorneys in private practice who contract to provide for indigent defense, leaving the only option of appointing noncontract attorneys. But there have been insufficient noncontract attorneys available to take such appointments for more than a year.

“When the State Public Defender seeks to withdraw under Section 13B.9(4)(a), the role of the district court is to evaluate whether the situation presented by the State Public Defender constitutes a ‘temporary overload of cases,’ as that term is used in Section 13B.9(4)(a),” the Attorney General argues.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2025-26