Always a failing score
Keeping score is not something I do as a public defender. I know my “wins”, but there is no tally; there is no scoresheet, no chart. Yet it is something that inevitably comes up once a month when talking to clients. “How many cases have you won?” “Have you tried X type of cases before?”. Essentially, are you good enough to be my lawyer?
People like Bennett, Norm and Scott can legitimately answer that question. Private counsel often have the luxury of choosing their clients. You see a good case, you take it. Case is a deal loser and will require only minimal plea bargaining – you don’t have to waste your time.
For us public defenders, on the other hand, the score wouldn’t represent anything. Our “win-loss” record means as much as it does for a pitcher in baseball: almost nothing. We get what cases we get. We deal with them as best we can.
I don’t mind, really. I know there will be more “losses” than “wins”. As an attorney, more of my clients will go to jail than not. This obviously is not the whole picture. What counts as a win and what counts as a loss? Is every case where the disposition you negotiate better than the client’s expectation a win? What if the client has unrealistic expectations? That’s called a no-win.
What of pleas, which make up the vast majority of the dispositions? Is a suspended sentence a “win”? What about a 3 year sentence when the prosecutor was looking for 5?4?
But again, this doesn’t bother me. I can’t really go into a discussion of the meaning of “win” with a client, so there’s a generic response.
On the other hand, with a paying client, it may not be so easy to brush off. Is it a legitimate question to ask of the private attorney you are about to hire? Does it, in a sense, help the consumer in making an informed decision? Or is it just about building trust between the attorney and the client? If that is the case, should I be answering the question instead of the general “I have plenty of experience”?
Yikes. What started out as a pretty straightforward post has becoming confusing. I don’t know the answer. What do you think?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on November 19, 2007 at 6:45 pm, and is filed under psa, we are real lawyers too. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
If you don’t want to frame it in terms of a winning rate, what do you think the best way to frame the question/answer is?
about 4 years ago
I’m not quite sure. I recognize that clients will always want to know how good their lawyer is, but any response will always be either incomplete, incorrect or misleading. I think the need for such a question might be obviated by the behavior of the attorney prior to and during initial communication. If your first meeting with the client takes the form of an involved discussion (by meeting, I don’t mean initial intake), then perhaps the client can see that the attorney is confident – or at least committed.
Reputation also goes a long way. You’ll be surprised (or maybe you won’t) how quickly word spreads in jails.
about 4 years ago
Good points. I guess that is the answer. I know that having an in-depth discussion at the first meeting seems like the answer from the attorney’s perspective, but then when I try to think about it from the perspective of wanting to hire an attorney, I imagine wanting to know something. Maybe reputation would be enough.
about 4 years ago
Criminal law isn’t a game, and results can’t be measured in “wins” or “losses.” Larry Posner told a semiar I went to, “Look back at your ten best results. Seven of them will have been guilty pleas.” He’s right.
I had one drive-by shooting case where the prosecutor offered 7-12 years. We went to trial, the client was convicted of less serious charges, and sentenced to 4-6 years. That’s a win, even though the client was convicted and sent to prison, because it was a better result that taking the plea. That’s the test for me–did we get the best result attainable?
about 4 years ago
You’re absolutely right. It is that nuanced.