I tend to spend a good deal of time counseling clients, explaining to them exactly what they are facing in terms of process, procedure and law (including penalties and punishments). Sometimes, all I can really offer them is that explanation and to work diligently on sentencing and a favorable PSI in order to limit their exposure to the system as much as possible.

Still, a client must be realistic in what they expect because every attorney, no matter how small her fees, needs to feed her family.

That being said, there are very few times when 2 + 2 = 15. It is when faced with massive impossibilities that I usually assume my client is likely lying. My job as a defense attorney is to give the best possible defense. If I take everything my client offers as absolute truth, I do him or her a massive disservice because I cannot then explain reality.

We have a duty to investigate the facts, to understand what happened, and to explain to our client that, sometimes, their dishonest ways will not get them past the judge. What kind of advocate can we be when we accept as truth, things that are patently false (i.e. “the sky is chartreuse”)? We will lose the professional respect of the judges, the prosecutors and the jury. That can never serve justice.

Attorneys are not puppets to be controlled by a client. If one truly believes that we are limited to accepting the facts as stated by the client without a judicious amount of speculation, questioning and confirmation, then we are idiots and our clients are fools.

I think another consideration requires the prospective client to take a hard look at his or her situation. It is hard to demand that an attorney work miracles when you are very, very guilty. This is another form of the price-point argument.

Mickey, to the extent that you are suggesting that potential clients should auto-triage and spend less money if they are “very, very guilty,” I disagree strongly. Potential clients generally have no idea how deep their legal problems are, and the depth of their legal problems rarely correlates to how factually guilty they are.

Every lawyer has clients who rationally decide that it’s in their best interest to plead guilty. Some of those clients are factually guilty; some are factually innocent and pragmatic.

If a lawyer gets 75% of his cases dismissed and pleads 20% of them, is she a better lawyer for a particular case than the lawyer who gets 20% of his cases dismissed and pleads 80% of them? Not necessarily—every case is different, and there might be something about the 80% pleader that makes him better for a particular case than the 20% pleader. But the client doesn’t know that at the time of making the decision, and so might be well advised to play the percentages and hire the lawyer on the hot streak.

Regarding the definition of (representation) you are sort of right. In reality, a CDL doesn’t represent a client in a criminal matter, he / she more or less (works) “for” a client. A CDL being the merchant and the client being the customer with innocence and or guilt being the CDL’s JOB to investigate & build an appropriate defense based on the findings. They don’t teach any of this, I’m sure, but it’s a business, (small or large) doesn’t matter for the reputation one obtains is directly related to how one conducts it. Thus, if you only defend based on the rate you dictate, 10 to 20 years later you could be the focus of a book, project or movie when the innocent emerge. Good luck with that. Thanks.

As an attorney you & your brethren probably don’t see the relevance of the question either due to it never coming up in the past or as seeing the answer as a possibility of not being hired should it reveal a pattern and or an inability to prove actual innocence.

In 1984, the term “Sale-Out” lawyer used to be a reference to court appointed lawyers due to their love affair with ADA’s. Which is exactly why I begged my family to hire an attorney, knowing good & well that we were too poor to. And as you know, poor people don’t consider any of your and the add-ons criteria when trying to assist a family member. Luckily a few neighbors helped my mom hire one for $800. cash, no questions asked on either side. Sadly, on the first and only day of trial he “Tapped Out” during lunch recess. $800. in return for one 15 minute jail visit, one 2 minute courtroom holding tank visit prior to voir dire, one 2 minute visit (handing me my suit & tie), 45 minutes of sitting next to me and 5 subsequent 1 minute holding tank drop in to tell me in code that he was afraid and wanted to go home.

Not one minute spent on actually defending and or gathering evidence. Case file shows not one single motion he filed (7) has the judge’s signature and or approval on the Order Thus, Motion for Discovery being typed up with a Cert. Of Service with a blank Order form, equates to the 14 Amendment being a joke played on the poor. In 98, I rec. a letter of recommendation for a full pardon based on actual innocence from him saying, “based on the facts of the case”, after I mailed him copies of my mug-shot, HPD Incident Report & case file. His history shows he’s never tried a case before a jury “all the way” prior to and afterwards. With that info. I am able to say that the term “Sale-Out” isn’t just for court appointed lawyers & a “Tapping-Out” record should be considered when shopping.

And of course, IMO, if one is 100% Not Guilty and poor, go with court appointed every time. But if you are wealthy and the attorney doesn’t have any “take it all the way” experience and a P.I. on retainer or in house, (keep shopping) because there won’t be any so-called looking under rocks, I promise you, it aint happening.
Thank you sir.

The Griffith Files – 1984 & Beyond
PROJECT: Not Guilty

The Griffith Files – 1984 & Beyond
PROJECT: Not Guilty

While EVERY defendant deserves the best representation possible, the meaning of representation is not “to get you off scott-free.” It does meant that I, as an attorney, will look under every rock (to the extent possible given the price-point), will ensure that the prosecution acts honestly and is forced to prove its case will real evidence (long story here), and that I will explain the process to the client in a way that she or he fully understands and so forth…

What we attorneys do not do on any regular basis is disabuse the client of her or his unreasonable expectations – one client demanded that I force the prosecutor to believe my client’s description of events – even though that description was completely incongruent with reality. I explained that during the pre-trial process, discussions were discussions and the only way I could “force” (the actual word used) the prosecutor to “believe” was to take the case to trial….

Lastly, we might also suggest what a colleague of mine used to say: “If you want the Johnny Cochran defense, you have to pay the Johnny Cochran price.”

I am an aspiring criminal defense law student and would give this advice to people as you did!

I wrote a blog article “How to Know > Do You Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer?” at: http://wp.me/pAFjr-26 and a similar FAQ page on my site: http://www.liberty-lawyer.com/faq/doineeddefenselawyer.html

I did because this is one of the most frequently asked questions I hear. Probably a quarter of the people I talk to get information from me that would help them accomplish their goals without hiring a lawyer like me (because of their situation or they already have a good lawyer). Other times callers don’t seem to really understand that the felony charge they are facing is worth more than their car payments over the next few years. The most important thing to consider when hiring a particular lawyer may be: Does the lawyer seem to put my interest ahead of his or her own? Yes, we do need to be aggressive on behalf of our clients at times, but a client is not well served at all if their lawyer is aggressive towards them!