More than 100 children charged in Baltimore’s juvenile court have waited months for their cases to move forward this year as the Maryland Office of the Public Defender struggled to find them private attorneys, according to a city judge.

Circuit Judge Robert K. Taylor Jr. said the cases of 121 children have been postponed this year because the public defender failed to find them what are known as panel attorneys, or private lawyers brought in to represent someone when the public defender represents someone else charged in the same case.

It’s considered a conflict of interest, and thus unethical, for attorneys from the same firm or agency to represent multiple clients charged in the same case.

It’s unclear how many of those children were being held in the custody of the state Department of Juvenile Services while their cases were stalled. But the figure Taylor cited represents about 12% of 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,” Pamela Chung, chief of Bates’ Juvenile Division, said in an interview.

Taylor called a hearing Wednesday to determine whether to hold the public defender in contempt of court for failures to hire panel attorneys, which he described as an obligation of that office under Maryland law.

He said it has taken an average of 129 days for a panel attorney to enter a case. That’s a problem, he emphasized, because state law says a child is supposed to go to trial within 30 days of their first court date if they are detained or 60 days if they are released from custody.

“I’m not sure who is responsible for this failure to provide panel attorneys,” Taylor said. “No one will tell me what the hell is going on.”

Most hearings in juvenile court are not open to the public, but Wednesday’s was. Upon learning a reporter was present, attorneys for the public defender’s office asked Taylor to close the courtroom, arguing that opening it was meant to make the issue a “public spectacle.”

“We’re not trying to hide the ball on our process,” Deputy Public Defender Keith Lotridge said. “We’re just not going to talk about it in open court.”

Taylor denied the office’s request to close the courtroom.

While acknowledging there were “failings,” Lotridge argued that judges have the ultimate authority to appoint attorneys, while the public defender can only ask them.

Taylor countered that the judiciary, unlike the public defender, doesn’t have a specific budget for hiring panel attorneys.

The public defender’s office had a budget of $158 million in fiscal year 2026, while the judiciary’s budget is nearly fivefold, at about $789 million.

Maryland Public Defender Natasha M. Dartigue said in an interview that the “real problem” in Baltimore’s juvenile court is “the toxic environment that’s created by the bench” is pushing private lawyers away.

“Panel attorneys are volunteers. They accept these cases everywhere else in the state,” Dartigue said. “But in Baltimore City they flat out say, ‘No, they are not dealing with the bench.’”

Defense attorneys Natalie Finegar and Roya Hanna, who regularly do panel cases for the public defender in Baltimore City Circuit Court, typically won’t take juvenile cases.

“I try to avoid it like the plague,” Finegar said in a phone interview. “They made me take a case about six months ago. It was a horrible experience.”

Added Hanna: “There’s circuit court chaos, and then there’s juvenile court. It’s just a lot more hectic.”

They cited quick turnarounds with an overwhelming amount of hearings. It also takes time to get a child to open up about what brought them to court and what is going on in their life, which could be relevant to the adjudication of their case. Not to mention explaining to a young person the intricacies of the legal system.

Then there’s the pay, which Finegar said hasn’t been updated in almost a decade.

The public defender’s office pays private attorneys $60 an hour for most cases, including juvenile. Finegar and Hanna described those rates as hardly enough to make ends meet for solo practitioners like them.

“You need to pay a livable wage,” Finegar said.

Hanna said the public defender’s office should look into aligning its hourly rates with federal Criminal Justice Act Panel, which pays panel attorneys over $150 an hour.

“The legislature probably needs to pay more attention to it and make the panel rate more close to the federal guidelines,” Hanna said. “I think you’d have more attorneys willing to do panel work.”

Dartigue pushed back on the idea that pay is a prohibiting factor.

She also said overcharging by city prosecutors plays a role in the problem.

Dartigue and Marguerite E. Lanaux, district public defender for Baltimore, said the office has gone to great lengths to attract panel attorneys, despite working on what they described as a shoestring budget. The office recruits at large law firms and those that require pro bono work, and has come up with training for private lawyers unfamiliar with juvenile court.

Finegar and Hanna said the public defender’s office appears desperate for private lawyers.

“It is daily: ‘I need a panel attorney, I need a panel attorney, I need a panel attorney,’” Finegar said. “They’re frantic. They’re begging people to take panels. But they don’t see it from our perspective. Because, unless you’ve experienced it, you don’t understand why some of us are not jumping to do it.”

Chung, of the state’s attorney’s office, said it’s not only the children who pay the price for the delays but also victims and witnesses.

“They feel like they’re not getting justice and don’t show up, so our cases end up getting dismissed,” Chung said, adding she is concerned 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.”

In court Wednesday, Taylor expressed frustration. One of the children in the case he was presiding over had waited 210 days for a panel lawyer. In a different case, a child waited more than a year.

“It’s not fair to the children. It’s not fair to the victims,” Taylor said.

“We are open to a discussion” outside of court, Lotridge responded. In the meantime, he added, “we will continue to do the best we can.”

Taylor decided not to hold the office in contempt.