Montana’s (new) public defender system

What is "equal access to justice"?
For the discussion here and although, I have spent some considerable time, researching around the internet, for an applicable definition for equal access to justice, I have not been successful. And maybe because they haven't defined it, is why so many governments around the world are having trouble with attaining equal access to justice. However, for this discussion, I shall define equal access to justice as: "The freedom or ability to fairly and equitably engage in the Montana system of jurispurdence regardless of a persons ability to pay."
On July 1, 2006 the Office of the State Public Defender (http://publicdefender.mt.gov/) assumed responsibility for statewide Public Defender Services, previously provided by cities and counties. These services are now provided statewide through Regional Offices of the State Public Defender.
The mission of the Office of the State Public Defender is to ensure equal access to justice for the State's indigent and to provide appellate representation to indigent clients.
The summary of Montana's State Public Defender Act is here: http://publicdefender.mt.gov/forms/pdf/bill_summary.pdf
And does Article ll - Section 4 of Montana's Constitution: Individual Dignity establish an affirmative obligation of the State to not discriminate in providing its' Public Defender services to ensure equal access to justice to the State's indigent?
Montana State District Judge Kenneth R. Neill (Cascade County) seems to concur. In a ruling April 15, 2009 Judge Neill stated, "assistance of counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions." And that a change in (Montana) state law, effective in 2006, "unambiguously erased the judge's desires in the matter of appointing a public defender." Read the Great Falls Tribune story here ... http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904220314
"There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Griffin v. Illinois, 351 US 12, 19 (1956)
Please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks ...