Contracts proposed by the state public defender council to handle cases in Fulton County are "unconscionable and wholly inadequate" to provide proper representation of poor people accused of crimes, a court motion filed Thursday says.

The filing amends an ongoing lawsuit that seeks a halt to the closing of the Metro Conflict Defender Office, which represents co-defendants when conflict-of-interest rules allow a public defender to represent only one person. The suit, on behalf of lawyers who will lose their jobs and defendants represented by the metro office, is being pursued by a number of prominent Atlanta lawyers.

The Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, citing budgetary constraints, plans to shut down the 21-employee metro office at the end of July. It would be replaced by seven salaried lawyers, six who will handle the most serious felony cases and one who will handle juvenile cases in Fulton County. Four other lawyers would be given contracts to handle the "non-complex" felony cases.

The council, the motion contends, "adopted the tactics of the robber barons of the railroad and steel industry during the 19th Century or, more recently, the companies reorganizing under the bankruptcy laws, by firing attorneys and then attempting to hire some of them back under far less favorable terms and without pensions and other benefits."

The defender council's director, Mack Crawford, declined comment Thursday, saying he had not yet seen the court motions. In past weeks, Crawford has said the council has to close the $1.7 million metro office to make sure the state's other public defender offices have enough funds.

The main target of Thursday's motions are the contracts offered to lawyers handling "non-complex" cases. The contracts are for $50,000 a year and would not provide for insurance, investigators or support staff.

Because the contract lawyers are each expected to represent 400 defendants a year, they would be paid, on average, about $125 a case.

The contracts set up the system to fail, the motion said. The low pay, combined with high case loads and lack of benefits, provides no incentive for the contract lawyer to stay on the job once a better employment opportunity comes along. This will cause high turnover and "deny defendants continued and competent representation," the motion said.