If you ever find yourself at the receiving end of the strongarm of the law in Arizona and are facing jail time but cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the court provided you meet the financial criteria. These court appointed attorneys are called Pulic Defenders.
Public Defenders are employed by the State of Arizona, the very entity that is trying to convict you. They often have lunch with the prosecutor who is the attorney for the state, the very person who is trying to convict you. This is obviously a conflict of interest by all legal standards but that is a whole other story for different post.
Sometimes, defendants are appointed a "Legal Defender" as opposed to a "Public Defender" who does the same job as a Public Defender, except they are a private practice attorney and not employed by the state like a public defender is. That is the main distinction between the two.
The number one reason a defendant may be assigned a Legal Defender rather than a public defender is, wait for it, wait for it... A conflict of interest!
But not a conflict of interest as in the state providing the defendant they are prosecuting and hoping to find guilty with a defense attorney who will be counter-productive to the state's witch hunt by trying to prove their innocence in hopes of finding them "not guilty"! No, no, not THAT type of conflict of interest, but the kind where the public defender assigned to your case by the court, is also representing say, a co-defendant, or a family member or somebody you are directly involved with on some kind of level that he or she is also representing. Other reasons include a public defender's caseload being full and cannot accept any new clients, among others things.
I am biased in my opinion that a legal defender will defend his client more aggressively than a public defender would simply because public defenders are overworked and often don't have the time or the funds for resources needed for such aggressive representation. However, that is just my opinion and not fact.
As far as credentials go, they are both licensed criminal defense attorneys but they may differ in their level of experience. A legal defender might have more experience taking a case to trial than a public defender simply because it is common nature for a public defender's client to accept a plea bargain, leaving the public defender without much trial experience.
