I feel so incompetent.

I agree that the advertising is slimy. The post is telling people how they will be treated by a real live lawyer, something which may or may not be true.

Yes, the ways to dispel the myth is to prove it wrong by action. I don’t doubt that and strive for that myself.

Yet, it doesn’t help that fellow members of the bar would exploit that stereotype for their own pecuniary gain.

The only and best solution is to negate the stereotype by words and, more importantly, by our own deeds with our clients and their families. Visit clients at the jail. Call them and their family members back. Research and file the same motions that you’d expect out of any excellent criminal defense attorney. Take their concerns about PDs and turn them around. Over time, you will get the good reputation in the jailhouse and become the best possible answer to the image problems that have plagued us for so long. It takes a lot of weekends and nights, but it’s really the only way for us to redeem ourselves, and to rest comfortably at night in the knowledge that our advice to clients is based on the facts and not on the crappy working conditions that truly do exist in many PD offices across the nation.

As for those “real” lawyers, I often remind my clients that they always want their money up-front, just in case the client’s not so thrilled with their representation when all is said and done. The truth is, most PDs are motivated by something much bigger than money, and it doesn’t get any “realer” than being a PD.

Three stories seem to be of note: A Public Defender points to a law firm that appears to trash PDs (I dissent on hermeneutic grounds and quibble over what it means to wiggle). A couple of weeks ago Robert Ambrogi…

I go back to Gid’s original point. It’s being used to denigrate PDs for self-promotion. It’s unseemly. It’s unnecessary. Even if there is plausible deniability, it’s just the wrong thing to do. Unless their firm motto is, “We may suck, but we’re better than the absolute worst lawyers anywhere!”

And what’s with the Mr. Greenfield stuff? Call me what my kids call me, the old man who sleeps upstair next to mom. Or just plain Greenfield. Or whatever.

In the moral and ethical sense it does not. But, in the “… client said it to an FBI agent” sense of the word is probably DOES prevent “false statements” conviction (or “perjury”) if it was in court or whatever.

So, your comment that “A lot of what they said is true – but it doesn’t apply only to public defenders.” shows the whole problem: it is IMMORAL to trash PDs, but it is not incorrect to say things about some PDs that might apply to all lawyers.

The reason that I find myself almost defending that firm (wow… it almost sounds like “defending those people”) is that the writing style and turns of phrases are often taught to lawyers (all kinds) as a good example of advocacy. Of course in those contexts, judges expect this, and there is an ample opportunity to rebut it.

The Public Defender is so overworked that they often times fail to build a meaningful relationship with their clients; they simply do not have the time. This means that they will not have the time to sit down with you and listen to your side of the story. They also will not have the time to answer your phone calls and questions.

One qualifier, “often times,” but many categorical statements. I don’t accept the premise that this is a fair critique or statement of fact, and one little wiggle doesn’t undo a categorical denigration of PDs.

What is the need to trash on other members of the same profession (and let’s not kid ourselves – they’re trying to make themselves look better by playing up the stereotypes about public defenders)?

A lot of what they said is true – but it doesn’t apply only to public defenders. So why aren’t other firms mentioned? Because there’s the prevailing notion that public defenders are a)overworked and b) don’t do anything but force clients to plead guilty.

It’s fear mongering.