California Assembly Bill AB690

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/14/25
• Refer: 3/3/25
• Report Pass: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/19/25
• Report Pass: 3/26/25
• Refer: 3/28/25
• Refer: 4/23/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 6/2/25
• Refer: 6/3/25
• Refer: 6/11/25
• Report Pass: 6/24/25
• Refer: 6/24/25
• Refer: 7/14/25

Caption

An act to amend Section 987.2 of, and to add Section 987.7 to, the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.

Summary

AB 690 would change how California counties and courts contract for indigent defense services beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027. The bill requires those contracts or agreements to comply with standards issued by the Office of the State Public Defender and to be structured around workload limits and the actual time needed to provide competent representation. It also requires contracts to include explicit links between compensation and caseload, separate funding for investigators and other case-related services, and a process for modifying the contract if caseloads or costs exceed what was anticipated. The bill also amends Penal Code Section 987.2 to make clear that assigned counsel in indigent cases are to be paid a reasonable sum and that any contract or alternative agreement for those services must meet the new Section 987.7 requirements. It preserves existing rules about when public defenders, county-contracted attorneys, or private counsel are appointed, while adding new standards for panel systems and information access for court-appointed counsel and investigators. The bill applies to counties and courts statewide and is intended to affect future indigent defense procurement, administration, and compensation practices.

Impact

AB 690 would impose new statewide standards on county and court indigent defense contracting, effectively prohibiting flat-fee and per-case compensation arrangements for indigent defense services and requiring contracts to reflect workload-based staffing and compensation. It would also require counties that use private entities or law firms to manage indigent defense to submit those contracts to the Office of the State Public Defender every two years, and to disclose hourly-rate equivalents when contracts are not written on an hourly basis. Because the bill increases duties on local governments, it is designated a state-mandated local program and could trigger reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds reimbursable costs.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support among legislators who voted on it, with committee and floor votes showing substantial majorities and no recorded opposition in some committee actions. The bill’s findings frame it as a constitutional-rights measure aimed at improving the quality of representation for indigent defendants and addressing excessive caseloads and financial conflicts created by flat-fee contracts. At the same time, the later committee history shows it was placed on suspense file and held under submission, suggesting fiscal or implementation concerns remained despite broad policy support.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s prohibition on flat-fee and per-case indigent defense contracts, which some counties or contract administrators may view as limiting local flexibility and increasing costs. Related concerns likely center on the fiscal impact of requiring workload-based contracts, separate funding for investigators and other support services, and periodic reporting to the Office of the State Public Defender. The bill’s supporters emphasize constitutional adequacy, fair compensation, and reduced conflicts of interest, while any opposition would likely focus on local control, administrative burden, and the potential cost of compliance.