Public defenders are good lawyers

It probably depends somewhat on your jurisdiction. But as a California prosecutor for the last three decades who has opposed hundreds of lawyers, I can say that on the average, public defenders are better at defending criminal defendants than are private attorneys. This is for at least three reasons. First, public defenders do nothing but defend criminal cases, day in and day out. They get lots of practice. They are up on the very latest law. Second, public defenders don't have to worry about running a business. Contrary to popular belief, they have (and again, I speak only from my California experience) more resources to throw at a case than private attorneys, who have to depend on the client's resources to fund the case. (In that regard, they are on more or less equal footing with prosecution offices, which are also subject to public funding.) Thus, public defenders' offices have full-time investigative staffs simply unavailable to private attorneys. Third, public defenders have their fellow public defenders to act as quality control, again for free. A public defender attorney will have both supervisors and colleagues keeping an eye on his or her work. Private attorneys do not have that luxury. The absolute worst work I have seen done in criminal defense has been by private attorneys.

All this is not to say that there are no good private criminal defense attorneys out there. There are some stellar ones. I have seen their work too. My point, though, as that on average, a public defender is going to be better for the client than a private attorney.

It saddens me when I see defendants' families bankrupting themselves to pay for a private attorney to supposedly give their son (almost always a son) a "better" lawyer. It almost never works out that way.

Morever, just as with any other profession, you have your stars and you have your rotten apples.

I have two close friends who are public defenders and they are very principled and hard working lawyers who do their best everyday for their clients.

I know other public defenders who are overworked and just go through the motions to get through their caseload.

The public defenders have a tough job though because unlike the prosecutor, who can pretty much pick which case they file and take on in court, the public defender does not get the choice of cases, and if the DA files, it's probably not going to be a stinker which the public defender can win easily.

The public defender also has to carry a big caseload and deal with clients who aren't always the smartest or nicest people in society.

My friends tell me how difficult it is sometimes to work with repeat offenders who are still thinking they will get off because the system owes it to them and the public defender who doesn't get them a sweet deal is incompetent.

My friends tell me how common it is for them to be demeaned by their own clients all the time.  The clients would ask if they had to be public defenders because they were not good enough to be hired by the DA or a private firm.  The clients also asked if someday the public defender might prove himself and then be able to get a real job as a lawyer elsewhere.  Those are very insulting because a public defender goes to the same school and takes the same tests as any other lawyer to get the license to practice. They just work for a different employer and they don't get to pick who they represent.

Then they get constant threats from their appointed clients who always say they will sue or file a complaint with the state if the public defender doesn't get them a sweet deal or get them acquitted, even though they were caught red handed and gave a confession.

So in all, I would never cast a broad net over public defenders by saying they are not good lawyers, quite the contrary.  I might not like what they do and the people they represent, but I respect them for doing a very tough job.

Read More

The purpose of a public defender

The purpose of the public defender is to provide some sort of assurance that no one is convicted of a crime without due process, which generally means a fair trial with conviction only to be obtained on proof beyond a “reasonable doubt”. This was a big deal to the “Framers”, the people who came up with the constitution and the bill of rights. Although generally at common law there had been a right to be represented in court, there had been certain types of cases prior to the American Revolution where that right had been abridged in the name of security or expedience. Thus it was written into the United States Constitution in the form of the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

If the defendant were too poor to afford counsel, at first they might have been out of luck. Individual states had a patchwork of policies and sometimes provided appointed counsel, but sometimes did not. By the mid-twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court had construed the Sixth Amendment to mean that counsel must be provided—in Federal criminal cases—if the defendant did not “intelligently” waive the right, and that the Government would pay the attorney if the defendant were unable to.

In 1961, a prisoner named Clarence Gideon had been convicted after a trial in Florida, which at that time would only provide state-appointed counsel in capital-murder cases. He wrote a petition to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the latter court’s “incorporation” doctrine required something akin to the Federal policy be imposed on all state-court prosecutions as well. The Court, after consideration, agreed. Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Thus, in any criminal case, counsel must be made available to the defendant regardless of the defendant’s ability to pay. The defendant does not have an unlimited choice of counsel; appointed counsel must be “competent”, but all licensed attorneys are presumed competent.

In some courts this right is entirely fulfilled by ad hoc appointments of lawyers in individual cases. However, the majority of courts now have public defenders. The public defender is an official appointed to provide representation to indigent defendants (and such other defendants as the court may feel are in particular need of representation) on a consistent basis for a particular judicial district. This makes the private bar happy (court-appointed criminal work, which is a little random, is usually unprofitable, and you get no choice as a rule about the appointments; merely being a lawyer in a particular court will make you eligible to be considered for them), and as a matter of judicial administration, it is more efficient to have a salaried PD office who can deal with the majority of Sixth Amendment appointment cases than to have to deal with each one individually. Appointments of private counsel in lieu of the PD do still happen to avoid conflicts of interest. I get perhaps two such appointments a year, as do most of my colleagues in the bar here. For the purpose of these appointments, I am the deputy of the public defender.

Is preventing the client from criminal penalty the primary aim or to challenge the state’s case as a check against tyranny?

The aim is to provide due process as alluded to above. Making the state always have to prove its case is considered a “check against tyranny”, if you want to use those words. However, PDs are lawyers, as well, and any lawyer is bound by a fiduciary responsibility to present a case in as vigorous a manner as is necessary and reasonable to guard the client’s interests. In the case of a criminal defendant, it’s clearly in their interest not to be convicted, or to receive as light a penalty as possible. PDs, unlike prosecutors, do not have the discretion or responsibility to abandon cases “in the interest of justice”.

In the case of plea deals, it may prevent the client from a harsher penalty but further enables the deterioration of the check on the prosecutors by prematurely ending the case.

The existence of plea deals as a way for resolving cases is a sheerly pragmatic matter. It can certainly be argued quite cogently that the ubiquity of disposition by plea is indeed a “deterioration” of the notion of making the State prove cases “beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, plea deals primarily exist because the courts don’t have the resources to try every criminal charge that gets lodged. They don’t exist because of public defenders; and eliminating the public defender would not improve the system too much on this score. It’s possible that more cases would go to trial—we’ve all had criminal cases where the prosecution turns over its disclosures and we think to ourselves “there’s no way we’re getting this person off”, and then attempt to talk the defendant into pleading—but those defendants wouldn’t likely fare too well at trial either without representation. One important function of lawyers in general is not only “advocacy” but “counsel”—we are there to tell the defendant when it might be good to throw in the towel.

Do we get it wrong sometimes? It’s certainly possible, but then again neither PDs nor appointed defense counsel often have a huge amount of money or manpower available to exhaustively re-investigate each case. Fixing the “plea deal” problem would involve a significant investment in the court system in general, not limited to the defender’s office.

Read More

What is it like to be a public defender?

Its tough.  Watch an episode of COPS and imagine those as your clients.  Watch an episode of Law and Order.  Those are not your clients.

• your clients are actually guilty most of the time;
• they often times don't appreciate the work you do;
• they often times aren't that smart (see my story below about the guy I represented who was busted as a result of the same informant, TWICE);
• they often times can't provide you with a lot of help.  "Joe saw, he can tell you."  "Where do I find Joe?"  "I dunno."  "What is Joe's last name?"  "I dunno."
• you have more limited resources than the prosecutor.  Often times a lot more limited resources.

I remember my first case on the federal indigent defense panel in Portland, Oregon.  I came to the realization that my job was basically to get the guy to plead guilty and get him warehoused in a federal penitentiary. 

That sucked.  My legal training and trial skills were basically irrelevant.  There was no legal magic to perform.  There was no Perry Mason moment that was going to happen if he went to trial . . . only a harsher sentence. Then explaining to his father what was gong to happen.

That case had a happier ending than expected, and its humorous moments. 

In between his first offense and the crime on which I was representing him, federal sentencing guidelines went into effect.  So, when I presented him with the plea deal from the prosecutor, he was shocked because he had been expecting something pre guidelines and much lighter (so was I, really).  I remember him getting pretty upset in the jail interview room.

In court, he fired me.  Called me incompetent.  A better lawyer would have gotten him a better deal, he proclaimed.  That kind of abuse from clients is common for public defenders. 

The Judge said I was fine, but let me go, as he needed to do.

As it turned out, a lot of his case rested on evidence (tapes and testimony) from an informant who had literally been responsible for convicting him in the past! Really, you can't make this stuff up.  I think the informant said he had stopped informing, and my guy believed him which led to the case in which I was defending him.

I was told later by his new lawyer that the informant got into trouble, so the feds had to drop the case.

Its probably tougher being the defender at the federal level.  The feds have a lot more resources at their disposal than local law enforcement.  My experience was they generally do a more thorough job of investigating before bringing a case, so they are much stronger cases.  In fact, when I was a Deputy District Attorney in Portland, Oregon, I remember jokes about the Assistant United States Attorneys because the AUSAs only seemed to bring easy cases.  I think that circulated around the office in an trial summary memo after the US Attorney's Office kicked a bank robbery case and the DA's office picked it up and secured a conviction. 

For example, that case I was talking about was a distribution of heroin and cocaine (retail). They set up a 3-4 tape recorded buys on this one guy with either the FBI or the DEA as the investigating agency. 

Now think about a date rape case.  A state level offense.   Hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but if you are the prosecutor, you need to bring it.  If you're the public defender, that's a case you'd much rather be defending than the drug case outlined above.  Basically, I think state law enforcement gets put in that situation a lot more than federal. 

I speak with limited experience.  I was on the federal indigent defense panel in Portland, Oregon and only handled a few cases in that capacity.  I was supervised by the federal public defender's office in that jurisdiction and trained with them.

Read More

The way for lawyers to feel about defending clients they believe to be guilty?

ALL defendants are innocent until and unless one of two things happens.

1. The defendant admits his or her guilt by pleading guilty; OR,
2. A jury finds the defendant guilty.

Yes, it is just that simple.

The burden is on the state to prove a defendant is guilty. If the state does a good job amassing evidence of guilt, and if the crime charged is appropriate, then a defendant will likely plead guilty.

It is the job of a criminal defense attorney to make the state prosecutor do a good job of amassing evidence and using that evidence appropriately, without violating the rights of the defendant.

If the prosecutor does not do a good job, if the police did not do a good job, if the charges do not track the facts, all of these people have contributed to the failure of the prosecution. If the defendant did not participate in the creation of circumstances and facts which establish his or her guilt, the defendant is not guilty of that with which he or she was charged. The defense attorney challenges the evidence and the procedures of the prosecution -- and if the evidence and the procedures do not hold up under scrutiny, then the defendant will be adjudicated not guilty or the judge will dismiss the case.

There is a lot for a defense attorney to do: Remember that the state's prosecutors sometimes overcharge defendants with more than the state can prove. This allows the prosecutors to bargain on the charges and offer the defendant a chance to "plead down." So, if a defendant is charged with several crimes, the state can dismiss some for a guilty plea. The state can also make recommendations to the court as to what sentence might be appropriate considering the defendant's culpability, the crime, aggravating factors (tending to make the crime worse) and mitigating factors (tending to make the crime less egregious). Also, a defendant might offer information about other serious crimes of which the defendant has knowledge to obtain a better deal.

“If you can railroad a bad man to prison,” says Cook, “you can railroad a good man. That’s why we should always vigorously fight for the constitutional rights of even those who are most despised in our communities.”

Additionally, It is the responsibility of an attorney to serve as an advocate for the client.

It is not the responsibility of an attorney to factor in, or serve as an advocate for, societal views or interpretations of the guilt or innocence of his/her client.

It is the job of the prosecuting attorney, to prove a case against the client.

So, the prosecuting attorney presents the best available evidence for conviction and the defense attorney presents the best available evidence for acquittal.

Most people don't understand the full value of having a professional advocate on their side in our adversary system of justice until they're in trouble.  As the old saying goes "Lawyers are bad, until you need one".

Attorneys understand their role--it's drilled into them in law school--so at the end of the day they focus primarily on how well they represented their client given the evidence at their disposal. 
    
Any cognitive dissonance associated with representing a guilty client, or helping to get one acquitted is counterbalanced by:

1. Knowing that our justice system was established to make the burden of proof the state's responsibility, and
2. Knowing that our justice system would rather set a guilty person free than convict an innocent one, and
3. Knowing that they have fulfilled their role in that system to the best of their ability.

Read More

The areas of law are oversaturated with attorneys

In my opinion, I can't answer that, because "oversaturation" is probably due more to geographical distribution than to areas of practice.  For instance, back when Nevada advertised itself as the state where you could get a divorce after a six-weeks residency period, family-law attorneys in Nevada probably had as much work as they could handle.  Eventually other states began to change their divorce laws.  So married couples were still getting divorced, but in their home states.  With fewer clients, it's possible that some of Nevada's divorce lawyers either had to go into other areas of practice or move to other states.

But I'll tell you what areas will be saturated if the United States ever institutes single-payer national health care, aka Medicare for All.  We won't need so many attorneys who specialize in personal injury and workers' compensation law, either on the plaintiff or the defense side.

Right now, employers are responsible for paying for their employees' work-related injuries and illnesses.  People turn to personal-injury attorneys after they've been injured by someone's negligence, e.g., due to an automobile accident.  Or their own insurance companies are finding excuses not to pay claims.

But under Medicare for All, everyone who needs health care, no matter why or whose fault it is (if anyone is at fault in the first place) will receive it, no questions asked.  Attorneys could still sue to recover lost wages, loss of consortium, and other non-medical damages--but there would no longer be any need to sue for payment of medical damages.

The so-called tort "reform" movement is nothing but a cover for big business, big insurance, and sometimes big government trying to shirk responsibility for their negligence.  Read tort-reform propaganda and you see the epithet "greedy trial lawyers" over and over (when they say it aloud, it sounds like one word), as if lawyers are the villains.  They're not.  Rob a convenience store?  Go to jail.  Market Thalidomide and kill or cripple unborn babies?  Give an unelected bureaucrat the authority to poison the water supply in Flint, Michigan?  Well, whaddaya expect, stuff happens. 

If they were interested in true reform, they'd be marching in the streets for Medicare for All.  The day it's introduced is the day half the law schools in this country will close their doors permanently.

Morever, It varies according to the local market and area of law, and I can't speak for all of them. But family law generally is saturated. There are many reasons for this. First, law schools are churning out graduates who see family law as an easy area to get into, although most quickly find out it is far more complex that it might seem. Second, family law attorneys face competition at the lower end of the market from document preparation services and law firms that provide limited services for a low flat fee. Third, more people are choosing to handle family law matters without an attorney because they feel that they either cannot afford or do not need one. Finally, many younger people are postponing marriage and child bearing, leading to fewer divorces and child custody disputes. I don't see any of these factors as signs that family law is becoming obsolete or even less important. But I do feel that family law attorneys need to try harder to differentiate themselves and demonstrate their value. Gone are the days when people simply assume that they need a family law attorney.

Read More

The way to dispute attorney fees

I will give you what you need to know and need to do to  dispute attorney fees,  i believe that will be very useful for you:
First, You start by chatting with your lawyer and explaining your concerns. See if you can work something out. If you cannot, the next step varies based on your fee agreement and where you are located. In some states there is a mandatory fee dispute program and you will be required to use that. In other states there is an optional fee dispute program, and you can choose to try to use that. If your fee agreement spells out the dispute process, you need to begin by following that. Assuming none of these are available or they have not worked (and they are not the final step in your state or under your agreement) you can sue.

Keep in mind, losing is not a basis to dispute fees. Attorneys are entitled to their fees unless those fees are objectively unreasonable based on the work performed or you can show some sort of problem such as fraud related to the fees, double billing, something along those lines.

 Additionally, The first step is to have a chat with the partner or senior lawyer in charge of your account. Explain why you think the fees are too high, or undeserved, or not as promised, the services were not rendered properly, or you cannot afford them. If you want to work with them going forward it helps if you're open to a productive outcome, like paying a lower amount immediately and agreeing on how to avoid any misunderstandings in the future.

If that doesn't work, you should look carefully at any engagement agreement, and exchange of emails or other messages to see what you and they agreed to, and if there's any procedure specified there for resolving fee disputes. Depending on which state (or country, if outside the US) you are in, the bar rules require lawyers to submit to a fee arbitration process on demand of the client, so consider that dispute process. Alternately, unless your engagement agreement requires arbitration you can go to court over the fees, but that's usually a last resort. If the lawyer is being truly unreasonable you can file a complaint with the state bar, or tell them you are going to unless you work out a fee arrangement.

Read More

Law School: What does it feel like to be a below-average law student?

Being a below average law student can be tough. Your peers are often among the brightest most social occasions while after involving heaps of alcohol tend to focus around academics and what grades people are getting etc. 
in addition once you fall back it's really hard to fight your way back in to the 70-80% ranges because 
A) you simply lack the motivation 
B) assuming you somehow work up the motivation you find it very hard to catch up as most subjects are split into parts A & B with the latter assuming knowledge from the former. 
Being a below avg law student is also harmful in the extra curricular sense as many will not invite you to join mooting teams or opt to include you in things like note exchange sessions. (This is also to some degree dependent on your social skills but peers often figure out that you have nothing to offer and given the schools competitive nature will tend to drop you) 
Finally being a below avg law student will see you losing a passion for the subject and often relying on some of your closest friends taking pity and lending you their exam notes which you will rote learn given the lack of understanding and simply regurgitate it in an effort to pass. 
This being said it is still possible to come from behind to up your average but it would require a phenomenal amount of effort in your holidays catching up and then trying to read ahead just so you can get back in the flow of things.
Additionally, It might depend on what law school you’re below average at.

I was a below average student (and eventually graduated “in that half of the class which makes the top half possible”) at a school which, then and now, is considered one of the top 14 law schools in the US, and pretty much what I (and others in my position) felt was explained by one of the upperclassmen who shepherded us around orientation before our first semester of our 1L year: “You guys have it made, even if you graduate in the middle of the class—hell, even if you graduate in the bottom of the class. You’ll be a graduate of [redacted]* University Law School; you’re already in the top 5-10% of all law students in the country.”

Basically, we felt sorry for the students who were below average at all those lesser schools, who’d have a harder time getting a well-paid job than we would.

(As it turned out, I took a lesser-paying job—I became a judge advocate in the U.S. Navy—because I wanted it, but at least my T14 law degree made it much easier for me to make the cut to becoming a Navy JAGC officer than if I’d been a student at a lesser school.)

*Name of law school redacted because, as I’ve mentioned in some of my other answers here, I hate the place with all the passion of a billion burning stars, and I never want my name publicly associated with it again as long as I live. And longer than that, if possible.

Read More