Rumors of my death, as Mark Twain once said, are greatly exaggerated. I've just been attending to other things. While I've fiddled, plenty of folks have been burned by a legal system that deprives too many folks of effective representation of counsel.
I've also decided to move to a new web host. You can find me at: http://www.pattisblog.com/. I will no longer have a separate page for Lawyers For All, but have moved all of this content to that page. It is listed under the topic labelled "Lawyers For All."
I hope to see you on the new page.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Times Editorial: Equal Justice For All
New York Times is inching its way to the correct conclusion. In an editorial yesterday, the paper praised efforts by the Justice Department to assure that indigent lawyers have adequate counsel when facing criminal charges. The paper also noted a less remarked upon problem: the extent to which indigent folks lack counsel in the civil justice system.
I am encouraged to see the Times take aim at the problem of access to the courts and to counsel. But I urge the Times to think more broadly. Certainly adequate funding of counsel for the indigent is a top priority, but just over the horizon is an issue as significant: the crushing burden of legal fees on the middle class. Few families can put together the funds necessary to finance a vigorous defense against serious charges.
There is no talk about the economy's recovery among lawyers serving the middle class and indigent. Our potential clients are scraping the bottom of barrels that used to be filled with rain. The real estate market has collapsed, taking with it the equity loan than many folks used to pay for counsel. There is no easy credit out there. Folks are tapped out and finding it impossible to pay legal fees.
What's needed is wholesale reform of the market in legal services. Every American should have the right to appointed counsel when accused of a crime. If that yields increased costs for the criminal justice system, so be it. Lawmakers might well then be forced to consider trimming waste at the margins. It's too easy to pass laws and criminalize conduct without counting the costs.
I reprint without permission the Times's editorial below.
Editorial
An Advocate for Equal Justice
Providing poor defendants effective appointed counsel is more than a constitutional obligation. It is a concrete measure of the nation’s commitment to equal justice under law. Yet indigent defense offices across the nation have been allowed to sink into crisis. They have fallen victim to insufficient financing, overwhelming caseloads and a slew of policies that hamper effective representation.
The civil legal aid system is no less challenged. Short on resources, local offices supported by the Legal Services Corporation, the federal agency that provides legal assistance for low-income Americans in civil cases, must turn away about half the eligible individuals who contact them for help with life-altering issues such as child custody or saving their homes from foreclosure.
One rare piece of good news is that Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has made it his mission to try to narrow this gap in the administration of justice. To lead his campaign, he has hired Laurence Tribe, the prominent Harvard Law School professor and constitutional scholar.
The basic, sound idea is to look at ways indigent legal services can be improved, including by creating incentives for states to make better use of pro bono legal assistance, and help the growing number of people who represent themselves navigate the courts.
Realistically, Mr. Tribe cannot be expected to solve all the financial and other problems impeding the delivery of indigent legal services. But in applying his formidable teaching and advocacy skills, he can be a catalyst for bolstering stressed criminal and civil legal service providers and finding fresh strategies for serving more Americans with their urgent legal needs.
I am encouraged to see the Times take aim at the problem of access to the courts and to counsel. But I urge the Times to think more broadly. Certainly adequate funding of counsel for the indigent is a top priority, but just over the horizon is an issue as significant: the crushing burden of legal fees on the middle class. Few families can put together the funds necessary to finance a vigorous defense against serious charges.
There is no talk about the economy's recovery among lawyers serving the middle class and indigent. Our potential clients are scraping the bottom of barrels that used to be filled with rain. The real estate market has collapsed, taking with it the equity loan than many folks used to pay for counsel. There is no easy credit out there. Folks are tapped out and finding it impossible to pay legal fees.
What's needed is wholesale reform of the market in legal services. Every American should have the right to appointed counsel when accused of a crime. If that yields increased costs for the criminal justice system, so be it. Lawmakers might well then be forced to consider trimming waste at the margins. It's too easy to pass laws and criminalize conduct without counting the costs.
I reprint without permission the Times's editorial below.
Editorial
An Advocate for Equal Justice
Providing poor defendants effective appointed counsel is more than a constitutional obligation. It is a concrete measure of the nation’s commitment to equal justice under law. Yet indigent defense offices across the nation have been allowed to sink into crisis. They have fallen victim to insufficient financing, overwhelming caseloads and a slew of policies that hamper effective representation.
The civil legal aid system is no less challenged. Short on resources, local offices supported by the Legal Services Corporation, the federal agency that provides legal assistance for low-income Americans in civil cases, must turn away about half the eligible individuals who contact them for help with life-altering issues such as child custody or saving their homes from foreclosure.
One rare piece of good news is that Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has made it his mission to try to narrow this gap in the administration of justice. To lead his campaign, he has hired Laurence Tribe, the prominent Harvard Law School professor and constitutional scholar.
The basic, sound idea is to look at ways indigent legal services can be improved, including by creating incentives for states to make better use of pro bono legal assistance, and help the growing number of people who represent themselves navigate the courts.
Realistically, Mr. Tribe cannot be expected to solve all the financial and other problems impeding the delivery of indigent legal services. But in applying his formidable teaching and advocacy skills, he can be a catalyst for bolstering stressed criminal and civil legal service providers and finding fresh strategies for serving more Americans with their urgent legal needs.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
A Unit Cost Theory Of Prosecution
Robert Wilson was charged with conspiring to commit mail fraud and aiding and abetting another to make false statements on a tax return. When he was arrested, he claimed he was broke. A public defender was appointed, and, after a six-week trial, Wilson was acquitted. Only it turns out that Wilson wasn't so broke after all. As a result, the trial court ordered that he repay the government some $52,000 for the cost of his defense.
The unit cost of defending against allegations of criminal misconduct are typically hard to calculate. Private counsel don't submit bills for public review. Institutional public defenders don't submit affidavits for payments on their cases as the cost of their services are sunk costs: paid regardless of who they represent and whether they go to trial. I am unaware of any systematic review of vouchers for payment submitted by counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act.
In the Wilson case, the court determined that the defendant was one of the world's foremost experts on antique weapons, and that, as such, he has a great earning capacity. It ordered him to repay the Public Defenders the costs of his own defense.
Most members of the middle class would be wiped out by a $52,000 legal bill. Like Wilson, they will not have the funds ready at hand and will have to pay them over time. A client convicted of a felony typically loses the ability to make payments on time. Hence, the practice in criminal defense of getting payments up front. I can't pay my staff and expenses with promises.
I am no fan of the American Rule, especially in the context of a criminal defense. When the government charges a person with a crime, the work of police officers, prosecutors, experts and investigators are all born by taxpayers. The full weight of the government, with its almost magical ability to finance just about anything by means of taxation, is brought to bear on an individual. Who can match the government's spending and resources in defending a crime? Almost no one.
The Wilson decision does not recite the underlying facts of the case prosecuted. But if the government is going to spend limited resources prosecuting a non-violent crime, the government should also be required to bear the cost of defense. In an era of overcriminalization we are all criminals from time to time. The only way to reign in an aggressive government is to require it to bear the costs of the fights it picks. The government should be required to calculate the unit cost of each prosecution: What does it cost to bring an action? And I am speaking here of both the prosecution and defense. Perhaps if Congress were required to count the cost of all the new laws it passes year by year we'd have a little less prosecution of marginal conduct.
At the very least, when the government loses at a criminal trial, it ought to be required to reimburse the defendant for the cost of defense. Otherwise, we make a mockery of the presumption of innocence. We tell folks that they are innocent unless proven guilty and then send them to the poorhouse to vindicate these rights. Is this what is meant when folks talk about the process being the punishment?
Hat Tip: Crime and Federalism: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0057p-06.pdf
The unit cost of defending against allegations of criminal misconduct are typically hard to calculate. Private counsel don't submit bills for public review. Institutional public defenders don't submit affidavits for payments on their cases as the cost of their services are sunk costs: paid regardless of who they represent and whether they go to trial. I am unaware of any systematic review of vouchers for payment submitted by counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act.
In the Wilson case, the court determined that the defendant was one of the world's foremost experts on antique weapons, and that, as such, he has a great earning capacity. It ordered him to repay the Public Defenders the costs of his own defense.
Most members of the middle class would be wiped out by a $52,000 legal bill. Like Wilson, they will not have the funds ready at hand and will have to pay them over time. A client convicted of a felony typically loses the ability to make payments on time. Hence, the practice in criminal defense of getting payments up front. I can't pay my staff and expenses with promises.
I am no fan of the American Rule, especially in the context of a criminal defense. When the government charges a person with a crime, the work of police officers, prosecutors, experts and investigators are all born by taxpayers. The full weight of the government, with its almost magical ability to finance just about anything by means of taxation, is brought to bear on an individual. Who can match the government's spending and resources in defending a crime? Almost no one.
The Wilson decision does not recite the underlying facts of the case prosecuted. But if the government is going to spend limited resources prosecuting a non-violent crime, the government should also be required to bear the cost of defense. In an era of overcriminalization we are all criminals from time to time. The only way to reign in an aggressive government is to require it to bear the costs of the fights it picks. The government should be required to calculate the unit cost of each prosecution: What does it cost to bring an action? And I am speaking here of both the prosecution and defense. Perhaps if Congress were required to count the cost of all the new laws it passes year by year we'd have a little less prosecution of marginal conduct.
At the very least, when the government loses at a criminal trial, it ought to be required to reimburse the defendant for the cost of defense. Otherwise, we make a mockery of the presumption of innocence. We tell folks that they are innocent unless proven guilty and then send them to the poorhouse to vindicate these rights. Is this what is meant when folks talk about the process being the punishment?
Hat Tip: Crime and Federalism: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0057p-06.pdf
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Justice? Take It Away From The DOJ!
I want to applaud the initiative undertaken by the Department of Justice, but I can't. The agency prosecutes people accused of crime. That's its role. There is no comparable agency devoted to the defense of those accused of a crime.
But now the department is about to launch a program to assist low-income people receive legal help. At some level, this smacks of paternalism: Does the department really care about justice, or does it just want to make sure that the convictions it obtains are bulletproof?
Laurence Tribe of Harvard will soon be hanging his hat at Justice. He'll head a new program called Access to Justice. In fact, he starts work on March 1.
Im not sure what Professor Tribe's brief will be. The New York Times reported as follows: "He will coordinate with judges and lawyers across the country with the goal of finding ways to help people who cannot afford a lawyer — a circumstance known in legal terms as indigent defense."
I think we need more than a high-octane cheerleader to make sure that all Americans have an adequate defense when accused of a crime. Professor Tribe can use all the moral suasion he possesses, but what's needed are dollars and a commitment of resources. The Government gets a Department of Justice, the Federal Bureaue of Investigation and the coordinate efforts of hundreds of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. The defendant gets exhortation?
A real Department of Justice would be overseen by an administration given oversight of both prosecution and defense. At the head of the agency would be the executive director; below him would be a prosecution and defense division. The same agency that funds prosecution would be required to fund the defense, thus assuring the overcriminalization was checked by something like a unit cost of criminal prosecution. Each prosecution could be audited and a fiscal impact statement be done: Were the two sides provided equal resources? What did it cost to prosecute and defend the case? Lawmakers could review such data and decide whether the people are getting their money's worth in the criminal courts.
And every American would be guaranteed a right to a defense when the Government charges a crime. It simply makes no sense to impoverish the middle class when the Government charges a crime. The presumption of innocence is supposed to mean more than bankruptcy for those seeking the service of a lawyer, investigators, experts and more.
The Times reports that Tribe will be taking a look at the use of drug courts and mental health courts. He will also work on issues related to criminal, civil and family courts. These are welcome initiatives, but, again, why house these efforts in the agency that prosecutes?
Professor Tribe has a unique opportunity to transform the discussion equal justice for all. I hope he thinks outside the box. That means thinking in terms of what can be done to remove this project from the DOJ and to seek an institutional foundation at least equal to that provided to the prosecution.
But now the department is about to launch a program to assist low-income people receive legal help. At some level, this smacks of paternalism: Does the department really care about justice, or does it just want to make sure that the convictions it obtains are bulletproof?
Laurence Tribe of Harvard will soon be hanging his hat at Justice. He'll head a new program called Access to Justice. In fact, he starts work on March 1.
Im not sure what Professor Tribe's brief will be. The New York Times reported as follows: "He will coordinate with judges and lawyers across the country with the goal of finding ways to help people who cannot afford a lawyer — a circumstance known in legal terms as indigent defense."
I think we need more than a high-octane cheerleader to make sure that all Americans have an adequate defense when accused of a crime. Professor Tribe can use all the moral suasion he possesses, but what's needed are dollars and a commitment of resources. The Government gets a Department of Justice, the Federal Bureaue of Investigation and the coordinate efforts of hundreds of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. The defendant gets exhortation?
A real Department of Justice would be overseen by an administration given oversight of both prosecution and defense. At the head of the agency would be the executive director; below him would be a prosecution and defense division. The same agency that funds prosecution would be required to fund the defense, thus assuring the overcriminalization was checked by something like a unit cost of criminal prosecution. Each prosecution could be audited and a fiscal impact statement be done: Were the two sides provided equal resources? What did it cost to prosecute and defend the case? Lawmakers could review such data and decide whether the people are getting their money's worth in the criminal courts.
And every American would be guaranteed a right to a defense when the Government charges a crime. It simply makes no sense to impoverish the middle class when the Government charges a crime. The presumption of innocence is supposed to mean more than bankruptcy for those seeking the service of a lawyer, investigators, experts and more.
The Times reports that Tribe will be taking a look at the use of drug courts and mental health courts. He will also work on issues related to criminal, civil and family courts. These are welcome initiatives, but, again, why house these efforts in the agency that prosecutes?
Professor Tribe has a unique opportunity to transform the discussion equal justice for all. I hope he thinks outside the box. That means thinking in terms of what can be done to remove this project from the DOJ and to seek an institutional foundation at least equal to that provided to the prosecution.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Eric Holder Lip Syncs About Public Defenders
I was a little startled to read the remarks of Attorney General Eric Holder at the National Symposium on Indigent Defense last week in Washington. I mean, there's the nation's top prosecutor admitting what criminal justice insiders know: the system is broke and in serious need of repair.
I applaud Holder's honesty. I only wish he were bolder. Admitting that all have sinned is but boilerplate theology. What's necessary is salvation. And that will only come with radical reform.
First, the obvious truths. Nearly a half century after the Supreme Court's decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, we are still a long way from achieving the goal of equal justice for all. Juveniles are routinely denied counsel. Public defenders are often overwhelmed and unable to provide effective counsel to those accused of crimes. We do not devote resources sufficient to fund the defense of the accused. True, all true, but what to do about this, Mr. Holder?
Holder calls for bandaids to staunch the bleeding. He wants an ongoing dialogue. He wants greater public awareness. And he wants greater participation by public defenders in policymaking discussions. All good. But tell me, really, what will this change? Here are some proposals with teeth:
1. Passage of a Law Enforcement Parity Act. Legislation of this sort would call for an estimate of the cost of administering a penal statute, including the cost of policing, experts, prosecution. Lawmakers would then be required to allocate funds for the defense of those accused of the crimes. There should be rough parity for the prosecution and defense of all crimes.
2. Anyone accused of a crime should be eligible for the services of a publicly funded lawyer, investigators and experts. Whether these funds go to a government mandated public defenders office, or to a private Legal Aid office, or to some hybrid entity is immaterial.
3. The harmless error doctrine should be eliminated in appellate review of criminal convictions. This doctrine excuses deficient performance by criminal defense counsel by asserting that despite counsel's failure, the client would have been convicted anyway. Thus the actual outrage of written decisions holding that a lawyer who slept through portions of his client's trial was not a violation of a defendant's right to counsel. If we are going to get serious about funding defense of those accused of crime, we need to be prepared to bear the consequence of failure. It is not enough to wink and say it really doesn't matter.
4. Requiring as a condition of bar licensure that all lawyers register and participate in a public defender system. Purists will say that the criminal law is not for everyone. Yet everyone who passes the bar is minimally proficient in the criminal law. A public defender panel could experience rate the counsel on its list. Mr. White Shoe corporate lawyer, the guy making $1,000 an hour and never soiling his suit with courthouse grime, could be assigned the simplest case. Hard to imagine he could screw up. And if he did, an appellate system which refused to excuse mistake as harmless would ensure that injustice was not done.
5. Create a criminal justice agency that oversees the funding of both the prosecution and defense. Obviously, the two functions would comprise different divisions with different leadership, but requiring that both divisions report to a common head would foster even resource distribution and foster a sense that the justice was the goal of the criminal justice system.
These are radical reforms. But they are necessary reforms. I'd like to see Mr. Holder put his shoulder behind measures level the playing field between the Government and those accused of crime. His comments last week at the Indigent Defense symposium sounded a little bit like the emporer's invitation to the weavers and millers living in the castle's shadow to a banquet: "Come to the feast," he said. "I'll be sure to save you some table scraps."
I applaud Holder's honesty. I only wish he were bolder. Admitting that all have sinned is but boilerplate theology. What's necessary is salvation. And that will only come with radical reform.
First, the obvious truths. Nearly a half century after the Supreme Court's decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, we are still a long way from achieving the goal of equal justice for all. Juveniles are routinely denied counsel. Public defenders are often overwhelmed and unable to provide effective counsel to those accused of crimes. We do not devote resources sufficient to fund the defense of the accused. True, all true, but what to do about this, Mr. Holder?
Holder calls for bandaids to staunch the bleeding. He wants an ongoing dialogue. He wants greater public awareness. And he wants greater participation by public defenders in policymaking discussions. All good. But tell me, really, what will this change? Here are some proposals with teeth:
1. Passage of a Law Enforcement Parity Act. Legislation of this sort would call for an estimate of the cost of administering a penal statute, including the cost of policing, experts, prosecution. Lawmakers would then be required to allocate funds for the defense of those accused of the crimes. There should be rough parity for the prosecution and defense of all crimes.
2. Anyone accused of a crime should be eligible for the services of a publicly funded lawyer, investigators and experts. Whether these funds go to a government mandated public defenders office, or to a private Legal Aid office, or to some hybrid entity is immaterial.
3. The harmless error doctrine should be eliminated in appellate review of criminal convictions. This doctrine excuses deficient performance by criminal defense counsel by asserting that despite counsel's failure, the client would have been convicted anyway. Thus the actual outrage of written decisions holding that a lawyer who slept through portions of his client's trial was not a violation of a defendant's right to counsel. If we are going to get serious about funding defense of those accused of crime, we need to be prepared to bear the consequence of failure. It is not enough to wink and say it really doesn't matter.
4. Requiring as a condition of bar licensure that all lawyers register and participate in a public defender system. Purists will say that the criminal law is not for everyone. Yet everyone who passes the bar is minimally proficient in the criminal law. A public defender panel could experience rate the counsel on its list. Mr. White Shoe corporate lawyer, the guy making $1,000 an hour and never soiling his suit with courthouse grime, could be assigned the simplest case. Hard to imagine he could screw up. And if he did, an appellate system which refused to excuse mistake as harmless would ensure that injustice was not done.
5. Create a criminal justice agency that oversees the funding of both the prosecution and defense. Obviously, the two functions would comprise different divisions with different leadership, but requiring that both divisions report to a common head would foster even resource distribution and foster a sense that the justice was the goal of the criminal justice system.
These are radical reforms. But they are necessary reforms. I'd like to see Mr. Holder put his shoulder behind measures level the playing field between the Government and those accused of crime. His comments last week at the Indigent Defense symposium sounded a little bit like the emporer's invitation to the weavers and millers living in the castle's shadow to a banquet: "Come to the feast," he said. "I'll be sure to save you some table scraps."
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Make Lawmakers Count Cost of Overcriminalization
Are we prepared, as a society, to pay more than lip service to the presumption of innocence? If we are, then it's time to we offered to pay for the legal defense of anyone accused of a crime. Anything less amounts to the most regressive tax of all, a tax which devastates the middle class while encouraging the growth of a government detached from the consequences of its actions.
Let's begin with fundamentals: The United States incarcerates more persons per capita than any other industrial nation on Earth. What's more, the sentences we impose are disproportionately longer than those imposed in other countries. In sum, the land of the free is in the grip of overcriminalization.
Expecting lawmakers to do much about it is like expecting a madam to impose vows of chastity on the working girls. Stirring the passions of voters about crime is just too lucrative a pastime for lawmakers. So legislators pass one law after another, imposing mandatory minimum sentences, enacting new crimes, and supervising the expansion of the penal code.
Until lawmakers are made to understand the cost of their punitive polices, they will continue to prefer severe criminal policies. We permit lawmakers to play with fantasy dollars when it comes to crime. We don't make them count fully the cost of what they are doing. I say change that by requiring the full costs of the criminal justice system to be borne by the public fisc. We can do this by requiring a universal public defender system, and guaranteeing to all citizens the right to a defense paid for by the state.
Indigents are already guaranteed a right to counsel. Ake v. Oklahoma holds that "when a State brings its judicial power to bear on an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding, it must take steps to assure that the defendant has a fair opportunity to present his defense." Why are we so sparing in our regard to fundamental fairness? Is the middle class any better equipped to face the state when charged with a crime?
In Connecticut, for example, the eligibility for the services of a public defender for a person with three dependents is $44,100 if the charge is a felony. Suppose a married man with two kids is charged with a felony in Connecticut, but makes $45,000. He is above the eligibility threshold. Let's say the charge is manslaughter, and arises from a motor vehicle collision on the way home from a Super Bowl party. The state charges him with reckless manslaughter for driving while intoxicated.
My anecdotal sense of the market in Connecticut is that lawyers called to defend this case will quote a fee for legal services of somewhere between $5,000 to $25,000 for pre-trial work, with a separate fee of $10,000 to $50,000 for a trial. Where does this client come up with the legal fees? And where does the client come up with money for a toxicologist to review the state's work? Or for an accident reconstruction expert to review the police reports? These fees will cripple a middle class family if the family is lucky enough to be able to raise them.
A better criminal justice system would require the state to pay for both the cost of prosecution and defense. A defendant found guilty could be assessed a fine to cover the costs of his defense.
Requiring the state to pay the full cost of defense for all those accused of a crime would avoid impoverishment of middle class families trying to vindicate the presumption of innocence. It may well be that such funding would have to come from a separate state agency, perhaps one that budgeted resources for both the defense and the prosecution so as to assure some rough parity of resources. Focusing the attention of lawmakers on the total costs of prosecution each offense might force lawmakers to make tough cost-benefit decisions about whether some offenses are worth the expense. It would also inspire meaningful overview of prosecutorial discretion.
Reprinted courtesy of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Let's begin with fundamentals: The United States incarcerates more persons per capita than any other industrial nation on Earth. What's more, the sentences we impose are disproportionately longer than those imposed in other countries. In sum, the land of the free is in the grip of overcriminalization.
Expecting lawmakers to do much about it is like expecting a madam to impose vows of chastity on the working girls. Stirring the passions of voters about crime is just too lucrative a pastime for lawmakers. So legislators pass one law after another, imposing mandatory minimum sentences, enacting new crimes, and supervising the expansion of the penal code.
Until lawmakers are made to understand the cost of their punitive polices, they will continue to prefer severe criminal policies. We permit lawmakers to play with fantasy dollars when it comes to crime. We don't make them count fully the cost of what they are doing. I say change that by requiring the full costs of the criminal justice system to be borne by the public fisc. We can do this by requiring a universal public defender system, and guaranteeing to all citizens the right to a defense paid for by the state.
Indigents are already guaranteed a right to counsel. Ake v. Oklahoma holds that "when a State brings its judicial power to bear on an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding, it must take steps to assure that the defendant has a fair opportunity to present his defense." Why are we so sparing in our regard to fundamental fairness? Is the middle class any better equipped to face the state when charged with a crime?
In Connecticut, for example, the eligibility for the services of a public defender for a person with three dependents is $44,100 if the charge is a felony. Suppose a married man with two kids is charged with a felony in Connecticut, but makes $45,000. He is above the eligibility threshold. Let's say the charge is manslaughter, and arises from a motor vehicle collision on the way home from a Super Bowl party. The state charges him with reckless manslaughter for driving while intoxicated.
My anecdotal sense of the market in Connecticut is that lawyers called to defend this case will quote a fee for legal services of somewhere between $5,000 to $25,000 for pre-trial work, with a separate fee of $10,000 to $50,000 for a trial. Where does this client come up with the legal fees? And where does the client come up with money for a toxicologist to review the state's work? Or for an accident reconstruction expert to review the police reports? These fees will cripple a middle class family if the family is lucky enough to be able to raise them.
A better criminal justice system would require the state to pay for both the cost of prosecution and defense. A defendant found guilty could be assessed a fine to cover the costs of his defense.
Requiring the state to pay the full cost of defense for all those accused of a crime would avoid impoverishment of middle class families trying to vindicate the presumption of innocence. It may well be that such funding would have to come from a separate state agency, perhaps one that budgeted resources for both the defense and the prosecution so as to assure some rough parity of resources. Focusing the attention of lawmakers on the total costs of prosecution each offense might force lawmakers to make tough cost-benefit decisions about whether some offenses are worth the expense. It would also inspire meaningful overview of prosecutorial discretion.
Reprinted courtesy of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
18B War In New York?
If there is a lawyer alive in New York City surviving on $75 per hour in legal fees, he's probably selling pencils on the side and sleeping in the IRT subway. A ten hour day at such a rate yields $750; a five day week would produce $3,750 at such rates. You can't pay the rent, a secretary, insurance and all the other bells and whistless needed to keep an office afloat at that rate and still earn a living.
Yet lawyers in Manhattan are prepared to go to war over an apparent threat to the current practice of paying counsel for indigent defense at the rate of $75 per hour. The city has promulgated an RFP that has some folks worring that this will spell the end of the so-called 18B lawyer. A war council has been put together to challenge the RFP.
Scott at Simple Justice is whooping it up on behalf of the war council. He sees Big Brother's hand at work here, and the loss of autonomy and independence for the bar. What's more, he uses this proposal as an example of what's wrong with a Universal Public Defender system, guaranteeing to all Americans the right to appointed council when accused of a crime. Scott's tilting at windmills.
I don't practice in New York, so I do not know the mechanics of the 18B circuit. But I suspect one concern the city has is with bundling. Suppose you are handling arraingments at a busy Manhattan court, and you are appointed to represent, let's say, ten clients on a given day. You might spend no more than 15 minutes with each client that day, and perhaps another couple of hours, let's say, three and one half to be generous, in court. That's 150 minutes with the clients, of two and one half hours, plus three and one half hours for court time. Call it a six hour day. What would happen if you billed the City $75 per hour for each client? The day suddenly looks lucrative: your've earned $4,500. Do that for a few days a week, and Manhattan suddenly looks affordable.
Whether this amounts to fraud is an open question. On the private side, I certainly would not double bill for my time if I were on an hourly retainer. If I wait in court cooling my heels for an hour while appearing on behalf of five clients, I just haven't spent five hours of time. But many lawyers will bill each client. There's profit even in the law for economies of scale.
I'm not saying that this is what is going on in Manhattan, but if it is, it's wrong.
I share the frustration over government set rates and fees. Indeed, I am so frustrated by them that I rarely accept work as a so-called Special Public Defender. Several years ago, I resigned in disgust from the federal Criminal Justice Act panel. My office was spending too much time negotiating with court clerks over vouchers: I was spending dollars to chase pennies. But the issue of lawyer convenience sidesteps the issue I am concerned with: Why is the forgotten middle class pressed to come up with legal fees when the prosecution knocks? There ought to be parity of resources for both state and defense. Hence my call for a universal public defender system.
Scott's paen for autonomy for lawyers strikes me as quaint. Sure, we all want to hang a shingle of our own and come and go as we please, and Mr. Smith still pines away for a seat in Washington, too. But its a tough market out there. Making sure we get paid enough to survive presses us into being not just advocates for our clients, but advocates for ourselves.
But notice what Scott is not saying: He is not saying that public defenders are not real lawyers. That is a common slur endorsed by many in the private bar for little more than marketing purposes. I know many public defenders who are excellent attorneys. I also know a lot of mopes chasing squad cars for a buck on the private side. Recepit of government funds does not yield ineffective assistance of counsel: It just might mean, however, that there is a dress code in the office and you can't wear your cowboy hat and spurs to the office.
The war council today among members of the New York criminal defense bar should aim high. I hope the group does more than take a shot at the RFP promulgated by the city. Why not consider a class action on behalf of inigent defendants challenging whether the current rate structure provides adequate assistance of counsel? The doctrine of associational standing provides a platfrom for action as a plaintiff. It is an open question whether a lawyer can offer effective assistance of counsel if he or she cannot pay her bills.
The real issue is not whether the rate of $75 per hour should be defended at all costs. The real issue is what it takes to provide effective assistance to counsel.
Yet lawyers in Manhattan are prepared to go to war over an apparent threat to the current practice of paying counsel for indigent defense at the rate of $75 per hour. The city has promulgated an RFP that has some folks worring that this will spell the end of the so-called 18B lawyer. A war council has been put together to challenge the RFP.
Scott at Simple Justice is whooping it up on behalf of the war council. He sees Big Brother's hand at work here, and the loss of autonomy and independence for the bar. What's more, he uses this proposal as an example of what's wrong with a Universal Public Defender system, guaranteeing to all Americans the right to appointed council when accused of a crime. Scott's tilting at windmills.
I don't practice in New York, so I do not know the mechanics of the 18B circuit. But I suspect one concern the city has is with bundling. Suppose you are handling arraingments at a busy Manhattan court, and you are appointed to represent, let's say, ten clients on a given day. You might spend no more than 15 minutes with each client that day, and perhaps another couple of hours, let's say, three and one half to be generous, in court. That's 150 minutes with the clients, of two and one half hours, plus three and one half hours for court time. Call it a six hour day. What would happen if you billed the City $75 per hour for each client? The day suddenly looks lucrative: your've earned $4,500. Do that for a few days a week, and Manhattan suddenly looks affordable.
Whether this amounts to fraud is an open question. On the private side, I certainly would not double bill for my time if I were on an hourly retainer. If I wait in court cooling my heels for an hour while appearing on behalf of five clients, I just haven't spent five hours of time. But many lawyers will bill each client. There's profit even in the law for economies of scale.
I'm not saying that this is what is going on in Manhattan, but if it is, it's wrong.
I share the frustration over government set rates and fees. Indeed, I am so frustrated by them that I rarely accept work as a so-called Special Public Defender. Several years ago, I resigned in disgust from the federal Criminal Justice Act panel. My office was spending too much time negotiating with court clerks over vouchers: I was spending dollars to chase pennies. But the issue of lawyer convenience sidesteps the issue I am concerned with: Why is the forgotten middle class pressed to come up with legal fees when the prosecution knocks? There ought to be parity of resources for both state and defense. Hence my call for a universal public defender system.
Scott's paen for autonomy for lawyers strikes me as quaint. Sure, we all want to hang a shingle of our own and come and go as we please, and Mr. Smith still pines away for a seat in Washington, too. But its a tough market out there. Making sure we get paid enough to survive presses us into being not just advocates for our clients, but advocates for ourselves.
But notice what Scott is not saying: He is not saying that public defenders are not real lawyers. That is a common slur endorsed by many in the private bar for little more than marketing purposes. I know many public defenders who are excellent attorneys. I also know a lot of mopes chasing squad cars for a buck on the private side. Recepit of government funds does not yield ineffective assistance of counsel: It just might mean, however, that there is a dress code in the office and you can't wear your cowboy hat and spurs to the office.
The war council today among members of the New York criminal defense bar should aim high. I hope the group does more than take a shot at the RFP promulgated by the city. Why not consider a class action on behalf of inigent defendants challenging whether the current rate structure provides adequate assistance of counsel? The doctrine of associational standing provides a platfrom for action as a plaintiff. It is an open question whether a lawyer can offer effective assistance of counsel if he or she cannot pay her bills.
The real issue is not whether the rate of $75 per hour should be defended at all costs. The real issue is what it takes to provide effective assistance to counsel.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Ake's Not About The Middle Class
While the United States Supreme Court has held that the indigent are entitled both to representation when charged with a crime and to the services of certain experts, those guarantees ring hollow to the middle and lower-middle classes.
Ake v. Oklahoma, 460 U.S. 68 (1985), held that when the sanity of a defendant is at issue, the state must provide an indigent defendant with the means to retain a psuchiatrist to evaluate him. The Supreme Court's language is moving: "This Court has long recognized that when a State brings its judicial power to bear on an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding, it must take steps to assure that the defendant has a fair opportunity to present his defense. This elementary principle, grounded in significant part on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee of fundamental fairness, derives from the belief that justice cannot be equal where, simply as a result of his poverty, a defendant is denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding in which his liberty is at stake."
Why limit the holding to the indigent? Few Americans have the means readily at their exposure to meet head on the calamity of a criminal prosecution.
In Connecticut, for example, the eligibility for the services of a public defender for a person with three dependents is $44,100 if the charge is a felony. (The state's per capita income is among the highest in the nation, at $56,248 for 2008. The national average was $39,751 that year. The figure is computed by the federal BEA by dividing a state's total personal income by the number of inhabitants.)
Suppose a married man with two kids is charged with a felony in Connecticut, but makes $45,000. He is above the eligibility threshold. Let's say the charge is manslaughter, and arises from a motor vehicle collision on the way home from a Super Bowl party. The state charges him with reckless manslaughter for driving while intoxicated.
What's the man's budget look like, assuming his spouse is not working. The gross monthly income is $3,750. If his mortgage is $1,200, phone and utility payments are another $200 per month the famiy's groceries are $150 per week or $645 per month, and his car payments and insurance are $400 per month, he is left with about $1,300 to pay state and local taxes. What's left after taxes goes to clothing and the other incidentals necessary to living. Let's say he manages to save $200 per month.
My sense of the market in Connecticut is that lawyers called to defend this case will quote a fee for legal services of somewhere between $5,000 to $25,000 for pre-trial work, with a separate fee of $10,000 to $50,000 for a trial. (My source for this information is largely anecdotal and comes from speaking to folks on the phone day in and day out.) Where does this client come up with the legal fees? And where does the client come up with money for a toxicologist to review the state's work? Or for an accident reconstruction expert to review the police reports? These fees will cripple a middle class family if the family is lucky enough to be able to raise them.
Ake's guarantee that a person can seek state funding for an expert once they become indigent is cold comfort for the family forced to their knees by a criminal prosecution. And while Ake speaks of the need for expert testimony to defend a claim that the defendant lacks the intent necessary to commit a crime -- the grand daddy of all defenses -- it is a holding rarely applied in the state courts for such things as handwriting experts, toxicologists and forensic interviewers. Ake is, in my view, mere window dressing.
Requiring the state to pay the full cost of defense for all those accused of a crime would avoid impoverishment of middle class families trying to vindicate the presumption of innocence. It may well be that such funding would have to come from a separate state agency, perhaps one that budgeted resources for both the defense and the prosecution so as to assure some rough parity of resources. Focusing the attention of lawmakers on the total costs of prosecution each offense might force lawmakers to make tough cost-benefit decisions about whether some offenses are worth the expense.
Ake v. Oklahoma, 460 U.S. 68 (1985), held that when the sanity of a defendant is at issue, the state must provide an indigent defendant with the means to retain a psuchiatrist to evaluate him. The Supreme Court's language is moving: "This Court has long recognized that when a State brings its judicial power to bear on an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding, it must take steps to assure that the defendant has a fair opportunity to present his defense. This elementary principle, grounded in significant part on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee of fundamental fairness, derives from the belief that justice cannot be equal where, simply as a result of his poverty, a defendant is denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding in which his liberty is at stake."
Why limit the holding to the indigent? Few Americans have the means readily at their exposure to meet head on the calamity of a criminal prosecution.
In Connecticut, for example, the eligibility for the services of a public defender for a person with three dependents is $44,100 if the charge is a felony. (The state's per capita income is among the highest in the nation, at $56,248 for 2008. The national average was $39,751 that year. The figure is computed by the federal BEA by dividing a state's total personal income by the number of inhabitants.)
Suppose a married man with two kids is charged with a felony in Connecticut, but makes $45,000. He is above the eligibility threshold. Let's say the charge is manslaughter, and arises from a motor vehicle collision on the way home from a Super Bowl party. The state charges him with reckless manslaughter for driving while intoxicated.
What's the man's budget look like, assuming his spouse is not working. The gross monthly income is $3,750. If his mortgage is $1,200, phone and utility payments are another $200 per month the famiy's groceries are $150 per week or $645 per month, and his car payments and insurance are $400 per month, he is left with about $1,300 to pay state and local taxes. What's left after taxes goes to clothing and the other incidentals necessary to living. Let's say he manages to save $200 per month.
My sense of the market in Connecticut is that lawyers called to defend this case will quote a fee for legal services of somewhere between $5,000 to $25,000 for pre-trial work, with a separate fee of $10,000 to $50,000 for a trial. (My source for this information is largely anecdotal and comes from speaking to folks on the phone day in and day out.) Where does this client come up with the legal fees? And where does the client come up with money for a toxicologist to review the state's work? Or for an accident reconstruction expert to review the police reports? These fees will cripple a middle class family if the family is lucky enough to be able to raise them.
Ake's guarantee that a person can seek state funding for an expert once they become indigent is cold comfort for the family forced to their knees by a criminal prosecution. And while Ake speaks of the need for expert testimony to defend a claim that the defendant lacks the intent necessary to commit a crime -- the grand daddy of all defenses -- it is a holding rarely applied in the state courts for such things as handwriting experts, toxicologists and forensic interviewers. Ake is, in my view, mere window dressing.
Requiring the state to pay the full cost of defense for all those accused of a crime would avoid impoverishment of middle class families trying to vindicate the presumption of innocence. It may well be that such funding would have to come from a separate state agency, perhaps one that budgeted resources for both the defense and the prosecution so as to assure some rough parity of resources. Focusing the attention of lawmakers on the total costs of prosecution each offense might force lawmakers to make tough cost-benefit decisions about whether some offenses are worth the expense.
Lawyers Can Choose; Can The Middle Class?
One thing that attracts me to the criminal law is the sheer romance of it all. Just me and my wits standing between my client and catastrophe. "Bring it on," I say, although in the well of the court, a judge's steely eyes replace the glare of high noon, and thinking fast is more important than shooting fast. I love going to court, and I love trial.
But I am not at all sure that I love it for the right reasons, and as Aristotle once oberved, virtue consists of doing things for the right reason, in the right way, to the right degree, at the right time. When I am crushed bby a defeat there is something like vanity at work. I nurse my sorrows in the comfort of my home; my client goes to prison. Of all the sins, pride can be the most deadly.
I was reminded of this while reading a piece in Simple Justice this morning. Scott wonders whether a universal public defender service, a new mission of mine, might work a disservice to the quality of defense. Will government control or entanglement yield mediocre standards? Will public defenders for all accused of a crime result in a further stratification of legal services, with the rich capable of paying for dream teams and the rest of us settling for waking nightmares? Won't we all be "working for the man" in such a system?
I am not persuaded Scott's suspicions are well placed.
I am defending a man in a capital felony in Connecticut. Jury selection started January 4, 2010 and we are now in evidence. There have been about four weeks of court proceedings during this period. As a result of this commitment, I have been unable to try other cases. I am doing this a special public defender appointed by the State of Connecticut.
I do not do enough appointed defense work any more. Several years ago, I quit the federal Criminal Justice Act panel in protest over the impossible delays and procedures in submitting vouchers. A paralegal of mine was nearly in tears one day when a form had been bounced back from the federal court for a third time. It made no sense to spend dollars of staff time to chase dollars of federal reimbursement. "Take these forms and shove 'em," I said. It felt good saying that. But I was probably wrong to react so.
In the Connecticut case, I am paid the sum of $100 per hour. That may seem like a lot to the non-lawyers out there, but when you consider the staff whose wages I pay, the rent, the insurance, the dues and all the other miscellany that it takes to run an office, the truth is that I lose money at this rate. But it is the top government rate in Connecticut, and, more to the point, the Office of the Public Defender has not yet even winced when I have requested additional funds for investigators or experts. There is no way my client could have afforded to pay a fee and the costs of investigators and experts.
So am I now working for the man? Hardly. I am compensated, but not enough, and my client has an experienced lawyer supported by folks who know their business. No one is telling me how to defend. No one is placing restrictions on what I can and cannot do. As always, I am limited only by the evidence code and my imagination.
I realize the fallacy in my argument thus far: a capital felony is different. What about run of the mill felonies and misdemeanors. Would I be free to defend as I imagine necessary there? The truth, I suspect, is that non-marquee crimes yield non-marquee treatment, and the purse-strings might be a little tighter in such cases.
But shouldn't clients have the right to choose whether they want to be defended at the government's expense? Why do all the choices belong to the lawyers? I don't begrudge the white-shoe types in upscale markets, where big fees can and are paid. I simply don't see those sorts of clients. I live in a small state, where most folks struggle to pay their bills, as do I. There are a few high-rolling lawyers in Connecticut, who are rumored to require that clients take home equity loans and place liens on the property of clients. Both lawyer and client are free to do this if they like. Nothing in a universal public defender system would require people to forego that choice.
It remains my conviction, however, that all Americans should have the right to counsel at government expense when the government charges them with a crime. Prosecutors have virtually unlimited discretion to bring charges, and they are armed with staffs that include not just investigators, but experts from state forensic labs and the efforts of law enforcement at the local, state and national level. Few defendants faced with this arsenal are as well equipped. Were O.J. Simpson a member of the middle class, and not a member of the sporting pantheon, I have my doubts about whether he'd be free today.
Having a unviersal public defender service does not mean conscripting all members of the bar and making them government employees. It means that all members of the bar can apply to be appointed off a list of qualified defenders. It also means that making your way onto that list, and remaining there, requires demonstrating minimal competence in the difficult work of defending the accused.
Not all lawyers will seek such appointment. Those who don't want strings attached to what they do can compete for the private dollars swirling in the wake of the arrests of the affluent. But the middle class, those folks not indigent but without the means to hire a full defense team, won't be facing the resources of the state armed only with the wits of the lawyer they could afford.
Scott's undoubtedly a great lawyer. His services will no doubt remain in demand. That won't change, and neither will his ability to take whatever cases he likes at whatever fee he can afford to accept. The right to counsel for all isn't about the lawyer. It's about clients and the forcing the government to bear the costs of the decisions it makes.
But I am not at all sure that I love it for the right reasons, and as Aristotle once oberved, virtue consists of doing things for the right reason, in the right way, to the right degree, at the right time. When I am crushed bby a defeat there is something like vanity at work. I nurse my sorrows in the comfort of my home; my client goes to prison. Of all the sins, pride can be the most deadly.
I was reminded of this while reading a piece in Simple Justice this morning. Scott wonders whether a universal public defender service, a new mission of mine, might work a disservice to the quality of defense. Will government control or entanglement yield mediocre standards? Will public defenders for all accused of a crime result in a further stratification of legal services, with the rich capable of paying for dream teams and the rest of us settling for waking nightmares? Won't we all be "working for the man" in such a system?
I am not persuaded Scott's suspicions are well placed.
I am defending a man in a capital felony in Connecticut. Jury selection started January 4, 2010 and we are now in evidence. There have been about four weeks of court proceedings during this period. As a result of this commitment, I have been unable to try other cases. I am doing this a special public defender appointed by the State of Connecticut.
I do not do enough appointed defense work any more. Several years ago, I quit the federal Criminal Justice Act panel in protest over the impossible delays and procedures in submitting vouchers. A paralegal of mine was nearly in tears one day when a form had been bounced back from the federal court for a third time. It made no sense to spend dollars of staff time to chase dollars of federal reimbursement. "Take these forms and shove 'em," I said. It felt good saying that. But I was probably wrong to react so.
In the Connecticut case, I am paid the sum of $100 per hour. That may seem like a lot to the non-lawyers out there, but when you consider the staff whose wages I pay, the rent, the insurance, the dues and all the other miscellany that it takes to run an office, the truth is that I lose money at this rate. But it is the top government rate in Connecticut, and, more to the point, the Office of the Public Defender has not yet even winced when I have requested additional funds for investigators or experts. There is no way my client could have afforded to pay a fee and the costs of investigators and experts.
So am I now working for the man? Hardly. I am compensated, but not enough, and my client has an experienced lawyer supported by folks who know their business. No one is telling me how to defend. No one is placing restrictions on what I can and cannot do. As always, I am limited only by the evidence code and my imagination.
I realize the fallacy in my argument thus far: a capital felony is different. What about run of the mill felonies and misdemeanors. Would I be free to defend as I imagine necessary there? The truth, I suspect, is that non-marquee crimes yield non-marquee treatment, and the purse-strings might be a little tighter in such cases.
But shouldn't clients have the right to choose whether they want to be defended at the government's expense? Why do all the choices belong to the lawyers? I don't begrudge the white-shoe types in upscale markets, where big fees can and are paid. I simply don't see those sorts of clients. I live in a small state, where most folks struggle to pay their bills, as do I. There are a few high-rolling lawyers in Connecticut, who are rumored to require that clients take home equity loans and place liens on the property of clients. Both lawyer and client are free to do this if they like. Nothing in a universal public defender system would require people to forego that choice.
It remains my conviction, however, that all Americans should have the right to counsel at government expense when the government charges them with a crime. Prosecutors have virtually unlimited discretion to bring charges, and they are armed with staffs that include not just investigators, but experts from state forensic labs and the efforts of law enforcement at the local, state and national level. Few defendants faced with this arsenal are as well equipped. Were O.J. Simpson a member of the middle class, and not a member of the sporting pantheon, I have my doubts about whether he'd be free today.
Having a unviersal public defender service does not mean conscripting all members of the bar and making them government employees. It means that all members of the bar can apply to be appointed off a list of qualified defenders. It also means that making your way onto that list, and remaining there, requires demonstrating minimal competence in the difficult work of defending the accused.
Not all lawyers will seek such appointment. Those who don't want strings attached to what they do can compete for the private dollars swirling in the wake of the arrests of the affluent. But the middle class, those folks not indigent but without the means to hire a full defense team, won't be facing the resources of the state armed only with the wits of the lawyer they could afford.
Scott's undoubtedly a great lawyer. His services will no doubt remain in demand. That won't change, and neither will his ability to take whatever cases he likes at whatever fee he can afford to accept. The right to counsel for all isn't about the lawyer. It's about clients and the forcing the government to bear the costs of the decisions it makes.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Welcome To Lawyers For All
Each year the criminal codes of both the federal and state government grows. The result is that increasing number of Americans face the devastating impact of a criminal prosecution. The burden of defending against a criminal charge falls most harshly on the middle class. Unable to qualify for a public defender, and lacking the means to hire a dream team, many Americans face trial without resources for experts, investigators the counsel necessary to meet the state's allegations head on.
The state, however, does not suffer a lack of resources to prosecute. And hence the great asymmetry in the criminal justice system: The state finances an expanding and expansive law enforcement machine with virtually unlimited resources. A young man accused, let's say, of possession of narcotics, might face not just the testimony of the arresting officer, but that of a toxicologist, and, perhaps, an expert on the characteristics of the narcotics trade.
Or consider the case of man accused of molesting a child a decade or more ago. The state will confront the man not just with the testimony of the alleged victim, but with experts on forensic interviewing, delayed disclosure of traumatic memories, incremental disclosure of crimes, and such other experts as it will. Many defendants meet these experts armed solely with the wits of their lawyer.
Appointed counsel, experts and investigators are available for those falling below the poverty line, and the wealthy can afford the counsel of their choice. Most Americans, however, are alone, and must negotiate a fee with the private bar. In many cases, the fee generated may be enough to cover legal fees but not experts. In other words, the middle class suffers a disadvantage at trial.
Why aren't all Americans entitled as a matter of right to the services of appointed criminal counsel, together with access to the services of experts and investigators equal in caliber and expense to those serving the prosecution? Isn't it the case that the public defender, able as it is to provide representation to the poor, is really but a first step in fulfilling the dream of equal justice for all?
This blog is devoted to building support for a universal public defender system for all Americans. Sure, it's a bold dream. But the fight for access to justice for all has already been won for the indigent; let's make the dream come true for all.
The state, however, does not suffer a lack of resources to prosecute. And hence the great asymmetry in the criminal justice system: The state finances an expanding and expansive law enforcement machine with virtually unlimited resources. A young man accused, let's say, of possession of narcotics, might face not just the testimony of the arresting officer, but that of a toxicologist, and, perhaps, an expert on the characteristics of the narcotics trade.
Or consider the case of man accused of molesting a child a decade or more ago. The state will confront the man not just with the testimony of the alleged victim, but with experts on forensic interviewing, delayed disclosure of traumatic memories, incremental disclosure of crimes, and such other experts as it will. Many defendants meet these experts armed solely with the wits of their lawyer.
Appointed counsel, experts and investigators are available for those falling below the poverty line, and the wealthy can afford the counsel of their choice. Most Americans, however, are alone, and must negotiate a fee with the private bar. In many cases, the fee generated may be enough to cover legal fees but not experts. In other words, the middle class suffers a disadvantage at trial.
Why aren't all Americans entitled as a matter of right to the services of appointed criminal counsel, together with access to the services of experts and investigators equal in caliber and expense to those serving the prosecution? Isn't it the case that the public defender, able as it is to provide representation to the poor, is really but a first step in fulfilling the dream of equal justice for all?
This blog is devoted to building support for a universal public defender system for all Americans. Sure, it's a bold dream. But the fight for access to justice for all has already been won for the indigent; let's make the dream come true for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
