Daily Archives: June 12, 2007

Isn’t it about the client?

Mark Bennett touches upon another pet peeve of mine: the elusive client file. Mark writes,

About a month ago a man hired me to replace his previous lawyer on his felony. I drew up a motion to substitute counsel, go the client’s signature on it, and sent it to the former lawyer along with a letter requesting that he sign the motion and return it to me along with the client’s entire file “so that I [could] continue my trial preparation from where [he] left off.”

He signed the motion and returned it to me within four days, but did not send me his file. I called and talked to him, and he promised to send me the file, but still did not do so. I called him again, and he promised it on a specific day. That day has come and gone, trial is coming up quickly, and I still have no way of knowing what work, if any, the previous lawyer did (operating under the assumption that the answer is “none,” I’m doing everything that should have been done by him six months ago). I have asked the previous lawyer several more times for the file and had no further response.

Seriously. What’s up with that? I’ve run across the same problem. I request predecessor counsel’s file and it never arrives. At least Mark got to speak to the other attorney. There are times when I get no response. Nothing. Letters are written, calls are made, motions are threatened and yet nothing.

Equally bad are those that claim the files are “lost” in a “flood” or “stolen from storage”. At least those give me a chuckle.

Hello. Criminal defense bar. It isn’t about you. It is about the client. You know, the guy charged with a crime? Now I’m not saying the whole bar is guilty of this. For sure, there are plenty of attorneys that promptly turn over the file, readily admit their mistakes and are eager to assist in the defense of the client (or in habeas corpus claims). But there is a certain percentage that views any effort by a former client to secure his liberty an affront to their lawyering ability. I’d rather it never come to this. If we all did our jobs perfectly the first time, these situations would never arise. We are all human, however, and being human presupposes that we will make errors. Our clients should not suffer because of that.

HT: CDW

[This post is one in a series of ongoing posts I have conceitedly titled "psa". To read the rest of the posts, click on the "psa" category link below.]

4th Circuit’s grant in Al-Marri

Of course, the other big news yesterday was the 4th Circuit’s (!) grant of a habeas corpus petition in Al-Marri v. Wright [pdf]. The basics:

In a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration’s detention policies, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that the government cannot continue to hold a U.S. resident — a suspected Al Qaeda sleeper agent arrested in Peoria in late 2001 — without filing charges against him.

The 2-1 decision by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Richmond, Va., means the government must release Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, from military custody and either charge him in the criminal justice system, deport him or free him.

The blogosphere has plenty of coverage on this and I will be back later with more, once I’ve had a chance to digest the opinion. From the little I’ve read since yesterday, there are some choice quotes.

Here is Scotusblog’s fantastic analysis.

“The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention,” the Court said.

The Fourth Circuit panel majority ruled that Congress has not taken away the legal right of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri to challenge his detention, thus limiting the reach of the Military Commissions Act’s court-stripping provisions. “As an alien captured and detained within the United States,” the Court said, “he has a right to habeas corpus protected by the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.” The Court said, though, that it was avoiding “difficult constitutional questions” about the MCA’s court-stripping provision, finding that it could interpret the MCA to stay clear of those issues. It found that the MCA withdraws habeas only for those properly detained as enemy combatants, and it ruled that al-Marri’s detention did not meet that test because of the lack of presidential authority.

Here is Volokh’s coverage.

The Government will seek en banc review by a full panel of the 4th Circuit.