I’d like to know more, because I’m curious. Can you (or anybody in the know) link to contemporary news reports, commentary, etc.?
Some Canadian provinces (Saskatchewan and Newfoundland & Labrador, for instance), do operate Legal Aid on a clinic system, similar to the PD system in the US.
This is what happens here. I’m curious as to what the attorneys here think of this. To me it is appalling. I can’t believe judges allow this to go on. The judges here have direct control over who practices as a PD in their court, and they continue to contract with attorneys who do this.
There have been several PDs here in this thread that have said some admirable things about their dedication to helping indigent clients. Would any of you guys go to trial five minutes after meeting your client?
This is a pretty comprehensive summary of it.
No way. We see incarcerated defendants within 72 hours of their arrests, and as the supervising attorney I assign the cases to attorneys as soon as we get them. Same with people who are not incarcerated- as soon as they apply for counsel, they are assigned to an attorney. Everyone who is represented by my office has the same attorney from the moment they become a client until their case is disposed of.
Unfortunately, we have no control over whether the clients who are not incarcerated will cooperate with us, stay in touch, and make their appointments. I can’t tell you how many times I will arraign someone, set up an appointment for them to come and see me, then I will never hear from him again until his case is on a trial calendar.
With the odd exception (e.g. Ontario family law), in Canada we can structure it pretty much any way we please: go with retainer (of whatever amount you chose), or contingency, or a combination (e.g. retainer for disbursements, contingency for fees).
Here in Ontario, most (but not all) legal aid work is done by lawyers in private practice on a voucher system. The pay is so very low that last year the lawyers in the province stopped taking on murder cases for a while, so as to put pressure on the government to increase the rate. How low? Under a hundred bucks per hour, with severe rationing of the number of hours, leading to a lot of free work being done. The problem with extremely low remuneration makes criminal law practices (and also legal aid funded family law practices) less appealing for a lot of people, resulting in legal aid voucher work being a dumping ground for young lawyers who are looking for any job in a storm, and for lawyers who are having difficulties in holding cash clients. That being said, I’d like to make it clear that despite there commonly being less than stellar lawyers floating through and occasionally settling in criminal law, most lawyers in the field are excellent, and are there for reasons other than money.
I expect that the bad rep comes partly and deservedly from the occasional sub-standard lawyer, but mostly and undeservedly comes from some of the animated pieces of shit whom criminal lawyers often represent, who often blame all their problems in life on others: “I’m in jail ‘cause my lawyer is bad an’ ‘cause the judge hates me an’ ‘cause the cop lied an’ ‘cause the guy was asking for it, an’ ‘cause fuckin’ bitches . . . .”
When compared against lawyers in other fields, it’s worth noting that legal aid voucher funded criminal lawyers typically have a lot of direct client contact right from the start of their careers, in which they are are usually handling cases with very little supervision, and in which they are on their feet in court making decisions on the fly. That usually differs from other types of practices, in which the new lawyer is often more gradually introduced to working with clients, has a more gradual introduction to working in court (if ever), and has more opportunity to consult with senior lawyers. That results in the clients of criminal lawyers observing their inexperienced lawyers perform in the crucible, where the lawyers will occasionally slip, whereas the clients of inexperienced lawyers in non-criminal practices usually will not observe their lawyers in the same high-pressure circumstances.
At one end of town we have the low court that deals with routine criminal matters. It always has security at the door and a metal detector. At the other end of town, at the high court where the really nasty matters are held, we don’t usually have security at the door, and there is no metal detector, unless one is brought in for a specific trial. Go figure. :smack:
We had a very similar incident happen here a couple years ago. A prisoner alone with the deputy in a non-monitored hallway got the gun and would certainly have gone on a similar spree. The actions of the deputy and the incredible alertness of the guy monitoring the cameras brought the situation under control with no serious injuries.
Point is, our building is very secure, with metal detectors and x-ray machines, the whole nine. But the deputy had a gun, and the prisoner got it. So the metal detectors were pointless.
eta: Before we had metal detectors at the front doors full-time, we used to set up metal detectors outside specific court rooms for specific types of cases. What types of cases, you ask? The murders, armed robberies, etc…? Nope, it was contentious divorce or child custody cases. Makes sense.
We have vertical representation in our office–the attorney who speaks with the client at arraignment handles all subsequent hearings of that case.
As for meeting the client five minutes before trial, both the system in our office and our court system makes certain that this does not happen. Every case has at least one pretrial hearing, at which I can speak to my client, go over the discovery, and discuss the prosecutor’s plea offer. If the client wishes to accept the plea bargain, it might be that we go into the courtroom relatively quickly–but it’s not five minutes, and I’ve generally met the client and family at arraignment and discussed the case with them then as well. I deal solely with juveniles, so I have to be very careful that they understand everything before we go into court. If, at the pretrial hearing, my client decides that he or she wants a trial, we set a separate trial date. I can’t even fathom a system that’s set up to go directly from arraignment to trial.
For some family law matters, I ask the police officer sit fairly close to the problematic party. The security is quite unobtrusive, but watches the parties like a hawk.
And then for some things, even an officer standing beside the prisoner’s box can’t stop the assault in time, for example the prisoner who pulled a bloody tampon out of herself while sitting in the box, and flung it at the judge.
Ever hear the expression, it’s only 99% of the lawyers who give the other 1% a bad reputation? Here’s the view from someone who’s been sued repeatedly. Where do they FIND lawyers to even take their cases??? I couldn’t find a lawyer to represent me when my brand new car literally fell off its wheels in the middle of traffic!
“Do you have enough evidence for me to win the case?”
“I don’t know; that’s why I’m talking to you. You’re the expert.”
“Well, call me when you have more evidence.”
I’ve had lawyers representing me lie right to my face about the law, and I’M the one paying THEM. Bush could have taken lessons from lawyers; they start planning their Exit Strategy the moment you talk to them, even the part about selling out their own client. As an attorney, you MUST have heard the adage, “Ask 5 lawyers and get 8 different opinions.”
I’m not sure just what kind of PD you are, but most of the ones I’ve seen are shanghaied by the court for a job, a poorly paid on at that, if at all, and don’t even bother to talk to the client about defense or strategy. The only thing more stupid that being represented by a PD is doing your own defense, and that’s 2nd Place by only a nose.
It was only when I started learning some courtroom procedure and (thank God for the internet) case law that I started winning cases for myself.
So you’re one of the 1%? Don’t act so surprised about the 99%, or that just means you ARE one of the 99%. Hell, I could have bought a new home with what I’ve lost WITH representation.
Hmmm . . . you’ve been sued repeatedly, and you have a beef against lawyers. Are you a friend of Stoid’s?
Seems when you start making really good money, you become a target. And then there’s schools. Yep, I mean the public education system. I’ve spent more years fighting teachers, principles, counselors and social workers from the school system. In those cases, it’s not about the money, but self confidence and accomplishment. I’ve got an overabundance of it, and I pass it on to my kids. Schools absolutely HATE that. Their job is to break the kids and place them in their little pigeonholes. Oh, and dictate their superiority over the parents, in court if the parents don’t readily back down. Then it’s the lawyers for the schools who smell the money and start their blood frenzy.
It took awhile to smarten up and learn how to fight them, and it ain’t with other lawyers. With what I’ve picked up over the years, I’ve been tempted to just get my own law degree and become my own Professional Pain in the Ass (PitA?) But since I’ve started representing myself, lawsuits have become non-existent. Now I just use it for the rare traffic ticket.
No, please don’t get a law degree and become a Professional Pain in the Ass. Pain in the ass lawsuits arise out of pain in the ass clients who prefer to go through life litigating.
I was talking about this thread with my family, and my brother-in-law offered this anecdote about HIS experience with a public defender. Personally, it mirrors my own experiences in most lawyers tell you “how this usually works” and go into negotiation and minimizing damage, rather than actually practicing law.
Many years ago, he was struggling to raise a family, and a check he wrote for groceries ($55) didn’t get entered into the ledger. So it bounced. (Yeah, I know, he would gotten a notice in the mail. Big deal, I gets lots of junk mail from my bank that I ignore and none of them have to do with bounced checks.) So, anyway, some 6 months later, the police come to arrest him on a warrant.
As I said, struggling at the time, no money for an attorney, so the court appoints one. So, as my brother-in-law puts it, “Yeah, I did it. It was a mistake. It needs to be made right, so why deny it?” So the PD tells him, pay the $55 to the company, plead guilty, and get probation and probably a fine and court costs. Which he did. 1 year probation and $300 in court costs.
Here’s the problem with the PD. There were TWO charges. One was writing a check for insufficient funds, which was a misdemeanor. The other was writing a check on a closed account, which was a felony. Pick one. Apparently the court, or the prosecution, picked the felony one, because my brother-in-law was surprised years later to find out he can’t buy a handgun with a felony conviction on his record. (The account wasn’t closed.)
I know, he can hire a lawyer and probably get it expunged, but it doesn’t seem to be that important to him. I can’t say that I wouldn’t have been just as stupid way back then, but with what I’ve learned of lawyers, I don’t trust most of the well-paid ones, let alone a free one who gets paid by the court either way.
As with any profession or job, there are those who are dedicated to their work, regardless of pay. As in any profession or job, those are fairly rare individuals. (If doctors are so great, why is malpractice insurance so high?)
Because some pain in the ass types like to go through life litigating.
Marc, I’m sure you know this, being almost an attorney yourself, but when your brother offered his guilty plea, he stood in front of a judge, and the judge asked him some questions about what he was doing, and he said to the judge “Yes, I’m totally doing that, and I have no questions about it.” Which means there is no way in hell that he was never told he was charged with a felony, much less that he could have accidentally pled guilty to one. You don’t just like sign a blank form and then the DA and the judge go into a back room and fill out the rest later in the week. There’s a whole routine everyone goes through just to make sure that the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him, and the only way anybody moves on is that the defendant himself says yes, OK, I want to do this.
I’m sure that some of the criticisms of public defenders are fair, and for all I know, the PD who handled Marc’s brother’s in law case was incompetent. I’m also sure that there a lot of people out there who either weren’t paying attention to their own case, or didn’t understand their own case and wouldn’t admit it, or who simply have been lying to themselves or to others about their cases, and blaming the outcome on the lawyer.
People think a lawyers’ job is to win for them; when they win, they got crack legal representation that pulled out all the stops in the interests of justice, and the outcome was the only fair one. When the lawyer on the other side wins, that side was represented by a professional liar, and the one representing them was incompetent and bungled a slam dunk case. A PD represents a lot of guilty defendants, and by definition loses a lot. Therefore, PDs are incompetent.
Slight Hijack
Handgun, or ANY other gun for that matter, at least from what I understand.
This is a Federal law, and I don’t know if even getting a conviction expunged would change his inability to ever legally own a gun again…
Well, Jimmy, since I wasn’t there, I can’t say for a fact. The OP asked for personal experiences with PDs and that one came up. I’ve never had a PD, but in my early days, I have pled (pleaded?) guilty, myself and there was no questioning about being sure of my plea. In fact, one lawyer did tell me long ago since then, NEVER, ever plead guilty in a court of law about ANYTHING. Even if the whole world saw it on TV and you’re guilty as sin.
Why? I asked.
Because, said he, when you plead guilty, that’s it. Case over. Sure, some judges may ask you questions to be certain you know what you’re pleading to, but not all, and not even most. Once you plead guilty, the judge has no choice but to sentence you. Even without a lawyer, if you plead not guilty, at least you get the chance to tell your side of things. It may not change anything. Hell, it might not change it one little bit. But at least you got a chance to tell your side. And that MIGHT make a difference in how he sentences you.
However, let’s take your “No Way In Hell”. How about that guy in Florida who finally got released from a 25 year sentence for possession of too many Vicodin pills, WITH a prescription? The judge refused to allow the prescription into evidence, which is what finally got the conviction overthrown on appeal.
Does “No Way In Hell” apply to the case in New Jersey where a man was moving from Colorado, and had stashed his rifles, unloaded, in the trunk of his car as the police advised him when he asked about transporting them? And how did it apply when the judge refused to allow that exception in testimony, even after the jury inquired about it, to prevent the man from being convicted to several years in prison for being in illegal possession on the sole basis that he had firearms in his vehicle? That was just overturned on appeal, as well, on the basis that the judge obstructed mitigating evidence.
Can you explain “No Way In Hell” about the Pennsylvania judge who’s currently under trial on corruption charges for railroading dozens of minors into privately operated teen offender boot camps for kickbacks?
Interesting that, No Way In Hell, you are so certain that malfeasance must be the fault of the victim. Now, if I’m standing on a street corner, and I see a kid about to dart in front of a speeding bus, am I obligated to save him from himself? It would be good if I did, but I’m not paid to be his guardian. On the other hand, if I were paid to be his guardian, guess who’s screwed for his dereliction for not protecting the kid.
So I guess the case could be made that the defendant hasn’t really paid for his Public Defender, and so he bears the sole responsibility for his predicament. Still, the JOB of the PD is to represent him as if he’d paid, and that’s why so many PD’s are regarded so lowly. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, but simply representing, rather than sleeping, or reading the sports pages, or doing the crossword puzzle. And representation is more than just having your name signed to the docket.
Now that we’re into it, I remember my sister-in-law involved in some family court issue. She couldn’t afford a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for her, and they did. I was surprised to find that the assigned lawyer was a Personal Injury attorney and, as he himself admitted, had no knowledge of family law. But she WAS represented, after all.
Push a judge under a bus? Sounds a bit extreme for me. Too bad the court system has it in for your family in particular.