THE CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND OF THE OHIO ACT IS DISCUSSED. BEFORE 1975, ONLY LARGER CITIES HAD PUBLIC DEFENDERS. MOST JURISDICTIONS, HOWEVER, APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR INDIGENTS. THE STATE REIMBURSED THESE ATTORNEYS ONLY IN FELONY CASES RESULTING IN CONVICTION, A SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN PRESSURE TO CHARGE POOR DEFENDANTS WITH FELONIES RATHER THAN MISDEMEANORS AND TO PRESS FOR CONVICTION. THE 1975 ACT MANDATES PUBLIC DEFENDER REPRESENTATION FOR ALL PERSONS ASSERTING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY IMPRISONED, ALL PERSONS COMMITTED OR DETAINED PENDING COMMITMENT TO A STATE MENTAL INSTITUTION, AND PAROLEES AND PROBATIONERS FACING POSSIBLE PAROLE OR PROBATION REVOCATION. HOWEVER, ANOTHER SECTION OF THE ACT STATES THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY PROCEEDING UNLESS 'FIRST SATISFIED THERE IS ARGUABLE MERIT TO THE PROCEEDING.' THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS PROVISION HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED. THE ACT 'PERMITS' PUBLIC DEFENDER REPRESENTATION FOR INDIGENT PERSONS CHARGED WITH THE COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE, JUVENILES OR PERSONS WHOSE COMPETENCY IS BEING DETERMINED BY THE PROBATE COURT, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS IN ANY PROCEEDING WHERE THE OUTCOME COULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF LIBERTY. SERIOUS PROBLEMS ARISE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THESE PROVISIONS. THE ACT DOES NOT MAKE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS CLEAR. IN ADDITION, COUNTIES ARE GIVEN THE OPTION OF HIRING LOCAL ATTORNEYS RATHER THAN MAINTAINING PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICES. THE LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING SUCH A SYSTEM IS SO VAGUE THAT THE QUESTIONS OF WHO IS ENTITLED TO SUCH COUNSEL, AT WHAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE LEFT UNANSWERED. THE ACT DOES CREATE A BASIC STRUCTURE OF STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL PUBLIC REPRESENTATION AND GENERALLY GOES BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDATING COUNSEL WHEN SIGNIFICANT INTERESTS ARE AT STAKE. THE DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCY IS BASED ON REALISTIC GUIDELINES. HOWEVER, THE GAPS IN REPRESENTATION AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AMBIGUITIES OUTWEIGH THE POSITIVE FEATURES. ALSO, THE ACT IS CONTRADICTORY ABOUT WHETHER INDIGENCY IS REQUIRED AS A PREREQUISITE TO PUBLIC DEFENDER REPRESENTATION. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ARE MADE FOR LEGISLATION TO REMEDY THESE DEFECTS. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)