Comments on: It’s the client, my good chap

By: steve

steve — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:15:59 +0000

I recently stumbled upon this site and enjoy the debate about public vs. private defense lawyers. Suffice it to say that I am a public defender in New Jersey in one of the largest most active counties and also have experience in private criminal defense. The typical caseload of public defenders in adult trial court in this state exceeds 100 to as many as 150 indictable cases at any given time. The office of the public defender represents upwards of 90% of all criminal defendants in superior court. Not only do we handle far more cases in a given year than even the most experienced private attorney may have handled in the past 5, we also handle the vast majority of cases involving serious violent crime.
My time in private practice was a stomach churning experience of being concerned only with the the bottom line. Associates would be fired if they dared to advise the client as to the worst case scenario if they were convicted at trial. The amount of effort put forth on cases would be in direct correlation to how much money the client had paid up front. Clients would be steered to trial no matter how overwhelming the evidence as long as the bucks kept coming. The tendency was to withhold information from the client so they wouldn’t get upset and hire another private attorney. The vast majority of private clients had little money to pay and cash flow was dependent on municipal court traffic cases and snaring a few of the exceptional cases where families would squander savings or property to pay for their family member’s defense. Trash talking public defenders is commonplace amongst local private counsel who compete for a very small percentage of defendants who do not qualify for the public defender. Even though the private caseload may be smaller, most of the time is disproportionately devoted to just a few of the better paying clients to the detriment of the rest. I find as a public defender, without the inherent financial considerations, I actually have more time to devote to my clients despite the higher caseload. The trial experience and skill that many public defenders develop is usually unmatched by the vast majority of private counsel (with some exceptions, although the best private attorneys typically are former public defenders and prosecutors). Typically the tactic of delaying a case is for the purpose of getting paid and has little to do with gaining a strategic advantage in a case.
There is good and bad in every profession. Amongst public defenders, there are varying levels of skill. Some are burnt out. Some are indeed completely incompetent. But generally speaking, one’s odds of getting a skilled, competent trial attorney are better with the luck of the draw in the public defender’s office than with private counsel. In my next post, I think I will devote some time to how the public defenders office can improve its representation of clients. Guess what? Most of my suggestions have nothing to do with the law, and everyting to do with public defenders checking their political and social ideology at the courtroom door. Effective public defenders know that their success for their clients depends on whether the prosecutor knows that even in the most hopeless of cases, that you have the skill to pursuade a jury to acquit your client. Your trial skill and focus on the facts of a case form the foundation for the best defense of your clients. Couple that with respect and diplomacy when dealing with Judges, prosecutors and court staff and you have the makings of a very good criminal defense lawyer. Bring your politics into the courtroom, make excuses for your clients, act like a jerk, and be gun shy about trying cases and you will help perpetuate the stereotype of the public defender as an incompetent “pretender”.

By: Heather B

Heather B — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:05:07 +0000

And perhaps on behalf of the client…cue Coldplay.

In my place, in my place/ were lines that I couldn’t change/ I was lost, oh yeah

I was lost, I was lost/ crossed lines I shouldn’t have crossed/ I was lost, oh yeah

Yeah, how long must you wait for it?/ How long must you pay for it?/ How long must you wait for it?

I was scared, I was scared/ tired and underprepared/ but I’ll wait for you.

By: Jdog

Jdog — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:04:20 +0000

Well, yeah; it’s precisely because of the assumptions that I think the unspoken assumption is questionable. Not necessarily wrong, mind you.

By: That Lawyer Dude

That Lawyer Dude — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:59:29 +0000

Why do you think it didn’t take place there (remember the assumptions above).

By: Jdog

Jdog — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:09:57 +0000

Request for clarification: why are you concluding that the conversation took place in the attorney’s office?

By: That Lawyer Dude

That Lawyer Dude — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:58:36 +0000

I have left comments on my blog and Scott’s and now I will leave one here. Your assignment of motive to me is untrue and you know it. I am not “marketing myself” on some blog from a MN PD. That is ridiculous.
Re-look at Miriam’s post. Now make the following assumptions:

A. She is a good lawyer
B. The Private Lawyer is a good Lawyer.
C. Private Lawyer did not solicit the client and
D. Private Lawyer need not see discovery to decide he differs with her on the potential outcome. (Just go with it)

Now ask yourself, why is her client in Pvt. Lawyers office to begin with? It isn’t marketing to say that Pvt. Lawyer brings value to the case and the way he can handle it and that Public lawyer did not.

Well paid lawyers do not covet PD clients. They do however offer a value that PDs could offer but often do not. These “intangibles” are the difference between a trusting relationship and one where the client goes behind the back of the lawyer to seek a second opinion.

The problem Gideon, is not that paid lawyers on the web or otherwise are marketing themselves. The problem is that not every lawyer on the web is provides a value to the client.

As for lawyer marketing:

When a lawyer succeeds in court, if he tells others about it, you call it marketing. I call it celebrating with colleagues. You’re in a PD’s office, you have colleagues there, many solo and small firm lawyers do not.

Additionally, if the lawyer writes in his blog “I won a Trial!!” that’s not going to win him a new client. IF he explores why he won or why the other side lost, he has added value. He may be teaching what he learned or he may be teaching his style or even his view of evidence. That clients come to him from that kind of post is not a suprise. That client is a client who is making smart use of the Internet. The Internet is far more than a big YELLOW BOOK as Yellow book is now learning.

What if one hired the world’s smartest lawyer, yet he was a fool before a jury??

Based on your view, the client should only know how much the lawyer knows. Anything about the lawyers experience, demeanor, outlook is all verbotten. What does the client then really know?

Client’s don’t care if the guy is Einstein, They want (and deserve) a lawyer who is smart and, can communicate and whose style and demeanor is in line with what he wants from a lawyer. Marketing tells that to a client.

Maybe PD’s ought to have to market. Maybe client’s ought to be given a case voucher to hire any lawyer who will take their case. If so, maybe many PD’s who have burned out or even think that they are best because of what they know, will then have to compete for the work. I’d like to hear how many PD’s would rail against marketing then. Maybe then you would understand that even poor people deserve value and not just knowledge from a lawyer.
Regards,
TLD

By: Ryan McKeen

Ryan McKeen — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:52:00 +0000

Come to think of it, the Verve would be perfect. For this post, I had in my mind an imagine of someone in line to apply for the services of a PD when a private lawyer walks over and tries to get a client. The lawyer tells the prospective client that he can get a great deal. Cue Dylan:

Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:40:23 +0000

Right click speaker on taskbar, select Open Volume Control, click Mute All

By: Gideon

Gideon — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:13:43 +0000

I should do that. Embed audio that no one can turn off. HAHAHAAHAH! *evul*

By: LJS

LJS — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:07:12 +0000

Back to the question of inter-attorney relationships. I work mostly in appeals, and I do form opinions about trial counsel’s work. Sometimes I give clients questions to ask habeas counsel about possible issues, or leave a memo in the file to habeas counsel about things that bugged me, but I also keep in mind (and remind the clients) that appellate work and trial work are very different and I have the benefits of time and hindsight.

My feeling is the same for habeas counsel. Once in a while, I get letters or calls from a client who’s having problems with their habeas attorney. I tell the client I can’t get into the middle of that relationship, and generally offer general suggestions about writing or calling the habeas attorney to make sure he or she knows that there’s a problem. (And I’ll drop a call to habeas counsel to let them know the client got in touch with me and had some questions.)

I also get letters from prospective clients, and generally say that I’d be glad to talk to their habeas/appellate/trial attorney, but I can’t give them legal advice, and their letters to me aren’t privileged so I ought not comment on anything significant. Again, I’m glad to try to help the assigned attorney, but I don’t want to interfere with the attorney-client relationship or undermine counsel, esp based on limited information.