In this article, we ask why public defenders remain on the job despite a number of unique and testing work-related challenges. To answer this question, we analyze original data collected through 87 semistructured interviews with public defenders from government, nonprofit, and appointed counsel systems across the United States. Participants explicated a set of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations salient to their decision to remain in public defense: interacting with clients, defending the Constitution, fighting social inequality, pursuing personal values, appreciating camaraderie with colleagues, and earning public sector benefits. We discuss how our findings relate to prior research, identify directions for future studies, and tentatively engage policy implications.
AbramsD. S.YoonA. H. (2007). The luck of the draw: Using random case assignment to investigate attorney ability. University of Chicago Law Review, 74, 1145-1177.
2.
AndersonJ. M.BuenaventuraM.HeatonP. S. (2019). The effects of holistic defense on criminal justice outcomes. Harvard Law Review, 132, 819-893.
3.
AndersonJ. M.HeatonP. (2012). How much difference does the lawyer make: The effect of defense counsel on murder case outcomes. Yale Law Journal, 122, 154-217.
4.
BabcockB. A. (1983). Defending the guilty. Cleveland State Law Review, 32, 175-187.
5.
BaxterH. (2012). Too many clients, too little time: How states are forcing public defenders to violate their ethical obligations. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 25, 91-102.
6.
BoylanR. T. (2004). Salaries, turnover, and performance in the federal criminal justice system. Journal of Law and Economics, 1, 75-92.
7.
BrideB. E. (2007). Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers. Social Work, 52, 63-70.
8.
BrinkmanS. (2017). The interview. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 576-599). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CohenD. (1995). The development and utilization of a work orientation typology for the study of public defender job satisfaction (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). The State University of New York, Albany.
10.
DaicoffS. (1996). Lawyer, know thyself: A review of empirical research on attorney attributes bearing on professionalism. American University Law Review, 46, 1337-1427.
11.
DeciE. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.
12.
DeterdingN. M.WatersM. C. (in press). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0049124118799377
13.
DinovitzerR.GarthB. G. (2004). After the JD: First results of a national study of legal careers. Dallas, TX: NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education.
14.
ElwoodL. S.MottJ.LohrJ. M.GalovskiT. E. (2011). Secondary trauma symptoms in clinicians: A critical review of the construct, specificity, and implications for trauma-focused treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 25-36.
15.
FaroleD. J.LangtonL. (2010). A national assessment of public defender office caseloads. Judicature, 94, 87-90.
16.
KatzJ. (1978). Lawyers for the poor in transition: Involvement, reform, and the turnover problem in the legal services program. Law & Society Review, 12, 275-300.
17.
KriegerL. S.SheldonK. M. (2015). What makes lawyers happy? A data-driven prescription to redefine professional success. George Washington Law Review, 83, 554-627.
18.
LabriolaM.FarleyE. J.RempelM.RaineV.MartinM. (2015). Indigent defense reforms in Brooklyn, New York: An analysis of mandatory case caps and attorney workload. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
19.
LaumannE. O.HeinzJ. P. (1977). Specialization and prestige in the legal profession: The structure of deference. Law & Social Inquiry, 2, 155-216.
20.
LauritsenJ. L.SampsonR. J.LaubJ. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265-292.
21.
LeeC. G.OstromB. J.KleimanM. (2015). The measure of good lawyering: Evaluating holistic defense in practice. Albany Law Review, 78, 1215-1238.
22.
LepperM. R.HenderlongJ. (2000). Turning “play” into “work” and “work” into “play”: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In SansoneC.HarackiewiczJ. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 257-307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23.
LevinA.AlbertL.BesserA.SmithD.ZelenskiA.RosenkranzS.NeriaY. (2011). Secondary traumatic stress in attorneys and their administrative support staff working with trauma-exposed clients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199, 946-955.
24.
LevinA.BesserA.AlbertL.SmithD.NeriaY. (2012). The effect of attorneys’ work with trauma-exposed clients on PTSD symptoms, depression, and functional impairment: A cross-lagged longitudinal study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 538-547.
25.
LuchanskyB. (2010). The public defense pilot projects: Washington State Office of Public Defense. Olympia, WA: Looking Glass Analytics.
26.
LynchD. R. (1997). The nature of occupational stress among public defenders. Justice System Journal, 19, 17-35.
27.
McIntyreL. J. (1987). The public defender: The practice of law in the shadows of repute. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
National Association for Law Placement. (2018, June). Findings from the NALP/PSJD 2018 public service attorney salary survey. NALP Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.nalp.org/0618research
30.
OgletreeC. J. (1993). Beyond justifications: Seeking motivations to sustain public defenders. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1239-1294.
31.
OgletreeC. J. (1995). An essay on the new public defender for the 21st century. Law and Contemporary Problems, 58, 81-93.
32.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
33.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2018). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation development and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford.
34.
ScheingoldS. A.SaratA. (2004). Something to believe in: Politics, professionalism, and cause lawyering. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
35.
SessionsJ. (2017, June16). Being soft on sentencing means more violent crime. It’s time to get tough again. The Washington Post. Available from https://www.washingtonpost.com
36.
SmallM. L. (2009). “How many cases do I need?” On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10, 5-38.
37.
SmithA. (2003). The difference in criminal defense and the difference it makes. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 11, 83-140.
38.
SmithA. (2004). Too much heart and not enough heat: The short and fractured ego of the emphatic, heroic public defender. University of California Davis Law Review, 37, 1203-1265.
39.
SteinbergR. G. (2006). Beyond lawyering: How holistic representation makes for good policy, better lawyers, and more satisfied clients. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 30, 625-635.
40.
WarrenC. A. B. (2011). Qualitative interviewing. In GubriumJ.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 816-828). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
WeissM. A. (2005). Public defenders: Pragmatic and political motivations to represent the indigent. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly.
42.
WiceP. B. (2005). Public defenders and the American justice system. Westport, CT: Praeger.
43.
WordenA.DaviesA. (2014). Criminal defense profession. In WeisburdD.BruinsmaG. (Eds.), Encylopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 83-102). New York, NY: Springer.
