by Julie O’Donoghue, Louisiana Illuminator
June 29, 2025

Last year, the attorneys who run local public defender offices noticed an unexpected clause in their annual state work contracts. It dictated the state public defender would have “sole authority” to increase their compensation “at any time for any reason.”

The provision ran contrary to a law the Louisiana Legislature approved a few months earlier requiring the state public defender to set pay rates for lead local public defenders “according to a compensation plan established by the board,” that oversees the public defender system. 

State Public Defender Rémy Starns had asked the legislature to give him exclusive control over chief public defender pay in February 2024, but the lawmakers declined. Instead, they added the stipulation to state law that requires him to use the Public Defender Oversight Board’s pay guidelines. 

Some local public defenders believe Starns slipped the extra clause into their contracts – which started on July 1, 2024, and run through the end of this month – to give himself power the legislature wouldn’t. Three of the state’s 36 chief public defenders crossed out the language before signing their contracts and sending them back to Starns. 

In response, Starns did not sign those three contracts, though the three attorneys – Michelle AndrePont of Caddo Parish, Brett Brunson of Natchitoches Parish and Trisha Ward of Evangeline Parish – continued to work the past year as if they were in place. 

Their experience is indicative of a wider pattern of irregularities since Gov. Jeff Landry and lawmakers restructured the public defender system last year to give Starns more authority. The Louisiana Illuminator obtained and reviewed copies of the annual contracts of the 36 chief public defenders currently working through a public records request. 

Over the past three months, Starns has refused to answer calls, texts and written questions sent through a series of emails about this report. 

Public defender contracts are late, unsigned 

In all, Starns had not signed contracts for 10 attorneys running local public defender offices as of March, nine months into the 12-month term of their agreements. Five weren’t signed by either Starns or the applicable chief public defender, though the attorneys continued to oversee the local offices as if the agreements were in effect. 

Of the contracts Starns did sign, at least 20 were signed late. All but two of the contracts with 36 current chiefs had a start date of July 1, 2024, but Starns signed only four before that deadline. 

It’s unclear why so many contracts were not completed or signed before they took effect. The chief public defenders in question have not commented, with 21 either not responding to phone calls made to their offices or declining to talk to a reporter. 

People who have previously worked in Louisiana’s public defender system said it is unusual for so many employment agreements to not be completed by their start date. 

“As far as I recall, all the contracts were always signed,” said Jay Dixon, who served as Louisiana’s state public defender from 2013-19. “When I was there, there was never anybody whose contract was not renewed.”

For nearly two decades, a state public defender board was in charge of hiring chief public defenders and had to vote on their contracts. That all changed in 2024 when the governor and Starns successfully lobbied for the state public defender to have more control over those positions.

Starns now mostly controls the hiring of chief public defenders instead of the board. Louisiana’s sprawling public defense network includes 850 attorneys who represent 146,000 people annually, accounting for approximately 88% of criminal defendants in the state. 

Frank Neuner, a Lafayette corporate defense attorney who was chair of the state public defender board from 2008-13, was taken aback when told about the irregularities in the contracts under Starns’ watch. 

“That’s very abnormal,” said Neuner, who serves on the board for the Legal Services Corp., a legal aid nonprofit, as an appointee of President Donald Trump. “That’s your contract. That shows me poor administration.”

Starns adds pay incentives without board approval

When hiring two new chief public defenders this year, Starns ignored the state public defender board’s pay scale he was supposed to follow. Instead, he used a compensation plan he asked the board to adopt three times in the last year but that board members rejected. 

The board compensation structure bases pay on a chief public defender’s experience as well as the size and complexity of the offices they run. For example, some oversee offices in more than one judicial district, and they would be compensated more under the board plan.

Starns’ proposal, which the board has never agreed to use, relies more heavily on offering incentive pay to chief public defenders who personally try cases in court. It also encourages chiefs with smaller offices to run private law practices in addition to their public criminal defense work.

In some cases, Starns’ compensation plan would cut the pay of individual chief public defenders by tens of thousands of dollars, which is a primary reason the board has declined to approve it. Starns has said he believes some current chief public defenders are paid too much.

In August, Chris Bowman signed a contract Starns drafted to become chief public defender in Winn Parish. It stipulates Bowman will be paid $60,000 per year, with the potential to earn up to $75,000 as long as he personally represents clients in court. It doesn’t give a specific number of cases that Bowman must pick up, but it appears to allow Starns to decide if Bowman has done enough work to earn the salary boost.

Bowman could not be reached at his office for comment about his contract. 

In November, Antonio Birotte signed a contract from Starns to become chief public defender of St. Landry Parish. His base salary is $84,000 per year, with the potential to earn up to $112,000 as long as Birotte personally represents defendants in murder cases as well as parents in juvenile court. 

As with Bowman, no specific number of cases is mentioned, presumably leaving it up to Starns to decide if Birotte has done enough work to receive his bonus pay. Birotte hasn’t responded to phone calls and messages left at his office. 

Public defender board members are angry with Starns for structuring contracts with his own compensation plan and not the one they have approved. They said Starns is breaking the law enacted just last year.

“It’s our authority to approve a compensation plan,” member Adrejia Boutté told Starns at a board meeting earlier this month. “It’s still violating something that we’ve already passed.”

New contracts with more control for Starns

The contracts Starns has asked chief public defenders to sign for the fiscal year that starts Tuesday give him even more power over their compensation.

They stipulate that Starns and the chief public defenders can terminate their contracts at any time for any reason with 30 days notice. The chief defenders also have to waive the right to appeal their termination to the public defender board and decline their right to use the board’s compensation plan. 

At the June board meeting, Starns said he would not agree to use the board’s compensation plan in any of the contracts.

“I’m not going to have contracts that have those provisions in them,” he told the board members.

“That’s why they were waived,” he added. 

Starns’ new stipulations appear to be in response to five chief public defenders who he is trying to oust that have challenged their dismissals. Earlier this month, a board committee recommended the full public defender board block Starns from firing the attorneys. Members are expected to vote on whether to try and stop the dismissals Monday. 

Starns is trying to dismiss AndrePont, Brunson and Ward – the three attorneys who struck language from their contracts that Starns wanted to include last year. He also wants to terminate Deirdre Fuller of Rapides Parish and John Hogue, who works in  East Carroll, Madison and Tensas parishes. 

The five attorneys have been the most vocal about opposing Starns’ policies since he first became state public defender in 2020 under former Gov. John Bel Edwards. They have pushed back on his proposed compensation plan several times in front of the board and state lawmakers.

Starns said 30 chief public defenders have agreed to his additions to their contracts that give him more control over their pay and more ability to fire them without cause.

Board member Frank Thaxton is skeptical, saying chiefs have only agreed to those conditions because they are afraid Starns will retaliate against them otherwise. A retired district court judge, Thaxton said some have contacted him personally asking for help.

“The district defenders are afraid to even discuss this among themselves, due to a well grounded fear of immediate termination if their opinions get back to the state public defender. We have no protection at all other than the board,” Thaxton said, reading from an email sent from a chief public defender whose name wasn’t disclosed during this month’s board meeting. 

“The overwhelming mood is fear. I am even afraid to send this message,” Thaxton said, quoting the email further.

Derwyn Bunton, Orleans Parish chief public defender from 2009-22, said the concessions Starns has inserted into the chiefs’ contracts for the upcoming year are substantially different from what was expected when he worked in Louisiana’s public defense system.

Bunton is now the chief legal officer of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that fights racism and other forms of discrimination, particularly in the criminal justice system. 

“It is a level of interference that no district attorney would ever allow or tolerate,” Bunton said. “The idea was to have the public defender stand on equal footing with the district attorney … and this is certainly a departure from that.”

Starns’ overwhelming control over the chiefs’ jobs could also make it more difficult for the attorneys on the frontlines of the public defender system to do their jobs. The state public defender is appointed by the governor, whose political goals often run contrary to the mission of the public defense system. 

Defendants have a constitutional right to legal counsel when facing criminal charges, but that doesn’t make it a popular choice to represent people accused of heinous acts.

In order to represent their clients adequately, public defenders often have to be insulated from powerful political groups, said Nathan Fennell, an expert on indigent defense with Southern Methodist University’s Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center in Dallas.

“The more that a public defender has to worry about how to keep their job … then the bigger the structural problem is … and the more the client may suffer,” Fennell said.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.

The post ‘Abnormal’ is the norm for Louisiana’s chief public defenders since Landry’s takeover appeared first on lailluminator.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article presents a critical view of the actions taken by Gov. Jeff Landry and State Public Defender Rémy Starns, focusing on perceived overreach and irregularities in managing Louisiana’s public defender system. The tone is investigative and highlights concerns from public defenders and legal experts, including those affiliated with progressive organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. While the article largely sticks to facts and quotes multiple perspectives, its framing emphasizes accountability and the defense of public defender autonomy against political interference, which aligns with a Center-Left perspective prioritizing checks on government authority and support for legal defense rights.