Baltimore Juvenile Justice System Faces Crisis as Delays Mount for Young Defendants
A backlog in Baltimore’s juvenile court system is leaving over 100 children in legal limbo, with cases stalled for months due to difficulties securing private attorneys, according to a recent hearing before Circuit Judge Robert K. Taylor Jr. The delays stem from the Maryland Office of the Public Defender’s struggle to find “panel attorneys”—private lawyers appointed to cases where a conflict of interest exists within the public defender’s office—to represent the young defendants.
The situation, revealed during a Wednesday hearing, highlights a critical breakdown in the system designed to ensure fair and timely justice for juveniles. Judge Taylor disclosed that 121 cases have been postponed this year alone due to the lack of available panel counsel. This represents approximately 12% of all juvenile cases in Baltimore this year, according to the Office of Baltimore State’s Attorney Ivan Bates.
“It’s one of our biggest problems here, just getting cases to trial,” stated Pamela Chung, chief of Bates’ Juvenile Division. The delays are not merely procedural; they raise serious concerns about due process and the well-being of the children involved.
Judge Taylor expressed his frustration, noting that, on average, it takes 129 days for a panel attorney to be assigned to a case. This is a significant breach of state law, which mandates a trial within 30 days of the initial court date for detained youth and 60 days for those released pending trial. In some instances, children have waited over a year for representation. “It’s not fair to the children. It’s not fair to the victims,” Taylor said during the hearing.
The public defender’s office, tasked with identifying and hiring panel attorneys, has faced scrutiny. Deputy Public Defender Keith Lotridge acknowledged “failings” but argued that judges ultimately hold the authority to appoint counsel, with the public defender’s role limited to requesting assistance. Judge Taylor countered that the judiciary lacks a dedicated budget for panel attorney fees, while the public defender’s office operates with a $158 million budget—significantly less than the judiciary’s nearly $789 million allocation.
However, Maryland Public Defender Natasha M. Dartigue attributed the problem to a “toxic environment” created by the court, alleging that private attorneys are actively avoiding juvenile cases in Baltimore City. “Panel attorneys are volunteers. They accept these cases everywhere else in the state,” Dartigue explained. “But in Baltimore City they flat out say, ‘No, they are not dealing with the bench.’”
This sentiment was echoed by defense attorneys Natalie Finegar and Roya Hanna, who regularly handle panel cases in Baltimore City Circuit Court but typically avoid juvenile court assignments. “I try to avoid it like the plague,” Finegar confessed, describing a recent case as a “horrible experience.” Hanna added that juvenile court is “just a lot more hectic” than circuit court, citing quick turnarounds and a heavy caseload.
Financial disincentives also play a role. The public defender’s office currently pays panel attorneys $60 per hour, a rate that hasn’t been updated in nearly a decade. Both Finegar and Hanna described this rate as insufficient for solo practitioners. Hanna suggested aligning rates with the federal Criminal Justice Act Panel, which provides over $150 per hour. “The legislature probably needs to pay more attention to it and make the panel rate more close to the federal guidelines,” she said. “I think you’d have more attorneys willing to do panel work.”
Dartigue, however, downplayed the significance of pay, suggesting that overcharging by city prosecutors also contributes to the issue. Despite these challenges, Dartigue and Marguerite E. Lanaux, district public defender for Baltimore, maintain that their office is actively recruiting panel attorneys through outreach to large law firms and training programs for those unfamiliar with juvenile court procedures.
The delays are not only detrimental to the accused children but also impact victims and witnesses, according to Chung. “They feel like they’re not getting justice and don’t show up, so our cases end up getting dismissed,” she said, expressing concerns about public safety. “You can only hold a youth so long. At some point, the court is going to release them. So, by the time you end up in court, they’ve already picked up new charges.”
Despite his frustration, Judge Taylor ultimately refrained from holding the public defender’s office in contempt of court, stating, “We are open to a discussion” outside of court. However, the situation remains critical, leaving a significant number of young people facing an uncertain future within a strained and overburdened legal system.
