Third Way Clients are the one who believe there's a third way. You present two options, and they want the third. Conversations with such clients generally results in withdrawal from representation.
A watered-down example of such a conversation goes like this:
Client: I want to go to trial.
Me: Okay. We'll set up a trial date.
Client: When?
Me: At the very least, sixty days.
Client: That's bullshit. I've been in here a month and I have to wait another two?
Me: If you want a trial, yes.
Client: What if I cop to this today?
Me: With your record, no judge is going to give you more than six months. You'd likely be out at halftime, in two months.
Client: But I didn't do this shit.
Me: Alright then. We'll set up a trial date.
Client: Can you get my bail lowered?
Me: I can try.
Client: Think they'll drop it?
Me: No.
Client: Why not?
Me: Because you have a history of not showing up in court. You failed to appear on your last six cases. Your bail is $500, which I understand you can't post, but it's highly, highly unlikely that any judge is going to lower it with your history of defaults. It doesn't mean I won't bring you in for a bail review, but I don't want you to get your hopes up.
Client: I didn't do this shit, man. Can't you get it dismissed?
Me: No, I can't do that. I understand that you're frustrated, but I have no legal grounds to ask for a dismissal today.
Client: So if I cop to this, I get out in two months?
Me: Yes.
Client: And I'm stuck here for two months for trial?
Me: Yes.
Client: That's bullshit.
Me: You're right. It's total bullshit.
Client: Man, you're just not in my corner. You don't wanna fight for me.
Me: Hey, I agree that this is bullshit. I want to fight for you. But this is the reality we're dealing with.
Client: Fuck you. I want a new lawyer.
Me: You got it.
This is a sanitized version of such a discussion. Usually there's a lot more swearing on the part of the client, and a lot more interrupting. Often, there are more frequent attempts on my behalf to explain the law. The end result is always the same with these clients: A client wants out, and at the realization that he's going to be stuck in jail until his trial date, it becomes my fault. Luckily, I've had very few of these types of clients. But they never cease to annoy me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
You get to pass off your clients?
My response to "Fuck you. I want a new lawyer" is "Fuck you. You can't have one unless you hire one."
It's rare that we conflict out a client because of personality conflicts.
Haha! I can totally see you having that conversation.
You forget that I live in the Cradle of Justice. We get to withdraw for such things as "irretrievable breakdown in lawyer/client relationship." Of course, it's gonna be really bad. I've done it once.
The way I really enjoy fucking with my clients if we don't get along is to force them into gay marriage. We can do that out here!
The real question is "is the client really innocent??" They keep saying that they didn't do "this shit." If so, why are they in jail with a list of FTA's and a record a mile long??
Wow, that sounds familiar.
What really sucks, though, is when you are granted your withdrawl for "breakdowns is lawyer/client relationship" but the judge keeps you on as "advisory counsel". I flippin' HATE that.
Paul -- are they innocent? Under the law, they sure are. Innocent until proven otherwise.
However, your comment illustrates the entire problem with the system, namely that our "peers" (the folks who decide guilt or innocence) really don't abide by the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof. I don't say this is a disparaging way -- it's just commentary.
Actually, they are "not guilty" until proven otherwise. Often times "innocence" has nothing to do with it. In fact, the last few times that I've won, my client were by no means "innocent", but were, in the end, "not guilty." Get my drift?
I hear you, sister!
"I'd love to wave my magic wand and get you a dismissal, but I've misplaced the damn thing this morning. Too bad."
I never get to pass off my clients, either. I've had one client succeed in firing me in all my years as a PD. That client hated me 'cause I told his mother to fuck off. Maybe that was tacky.
I disagree, Jay.
Technically they're innocent until proven guilty. Yet they're merely found "not guilty."
Shit, though, is ANYONE really innocent?
So, there's this "burden of proof." Lack of proof in no real way says anyone is really innocent, just that you cant' "proove" that the suspect committed the crime. Look at OJ Simpson. I rest my case.
I like to say, "you can have any lawyer you want to hire." Or when they ask for a new lawyer within the unit I just say, "no." (like I want to pass off Mr./Ms. Happy on one of my co-workers)
It gets more bizarre in juvie cases when you toss disgruntled parents into the mix. "Why can't my baby get out of detention?" "He's charged with a 1st degree felony." "But he ain't been found guilty, yet. Could he get out if I got him a free world lawyer?""Ma'am, if you could afford a lawyer, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
Missconductpdx, I SO wish I could say that to my clients parents. Although I have said a few things to the grown(?) siblings of clients who come to court with the parents and won't shut up that made me worry I might die in a hail of gunfire in the parking lot.
I just reviewed 200 jury questionnaires for one of my attorneys in a murder case. One of the questions was do you believe the defendant must bring facts to the trial to prove their innocence? A majority of the respondents said, yes. WTF? Doesn't anyone remember the high school civics lesson pertaining to innocent until proven guilty and the state has to prove their case? This lack of knowledge by our jury pool is very scary.
Paul,
First of all, O.J. Simpson was the exception, not the rule.
But more importantly, the burden of proof is such that we (as defendants) do not HAVE to prove our innocence. Rather, the state HAS to prove our guilt. So under the law, lack of evidence much render a verdict of not guilty.
However, most people agree with your perception, so even though the burden of proof exists, the jury doesn't follow it. Hence, the problem with our system.
Isn't it funny, you guys get bent out of shape about a pissy client who abuses you, but then look down on people like me who get pissy about having to pay taxes to give these ingrates a freebie. At some point, we should not have to pay for counsel for repeat losers--they have created their own indigency, and it should be their problem. The right to paid for counsel is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that it's a constitutional right applicable to the States. Some tweaking, I think, needs to occur.
So your tweaks would include what exactly? Kangaroo courts for repeat offenders who can't afford counsel? How about detention centers being built or improvised in most major cities and anyone with a criminal record be declared an "enemy combatant" of the people? See, that's the real danger when you start tossing out rights for certain individuals. First they come for sex offenders, then they come for DUI offenders, then negligent parents (of which they are legion), then immigrants, then anyone with any dissident views. Don't think it can happen, well how the fuck did we slide as far as we have? Crime is neither caused nor solved by law enforcement or judicial measures. It is a direct result of economic depression and a widening gulf between social strata. Look at when Republicans first really decided to declare a war on crime. As far as I can tell it was right around the time of the Civil Rights movement. Given the huge disparity in our country's prison system, it seems to me that smiling gladhands who use crime as a means to get elected are sending one unilateral message: our goal is to protect white children from non-white people.
America needs to look in the goddamned mirror and see the one color that should paint us all is red. Red from the shame we should collectively feel.
Somehow, the Republic survived the lack of the right to paid for counsel, something which was not invented until 1963.
In any event, people who create their own indigency really cannot complain when people don't want their hard-earned money going to defend them.
As for protecting "white children", well I want to protect all children . . . . And anyone that harms mine, I expect serious punishment.
Maybe because it was something that wasn't needed until then? For someone who wants to remain anonymous, you obviously want the same for how your tax money is actually spent. Have you even bothered to ask how much of your tax money goes towards this, or even what kind of taxes pay for it? It sure as hell isn't your income tax.
As far as protecting all children, that's laughable. Many inmates are poor because they were born into poverty. If all you want to do is bitch about public defenders being paid for by public money yet have no opinions, thoughts, or ideas on the root causes of poverty and how it relates to crime, education, and child welfare, then you've epitomized hypocrisy. Those inmates that you despise so much? They're somebody's children. But if you don't like paying for it, don't. See how well that works out for you.
Ah, the "root causes" of crime . . . .
Do people actually believe that nonsense?
Actually, Dave referred to the root causes of poverty in his post, not the root causes of crime.
It's a never-ending cycle, really. Poverty causes crime, which causes poverty, which causes crime.
As for "creating" indigency (by which you really mean "poverty"): No one WANTS to be poor. No one wakes up in the morning thinking, I really want to be poor and treated like shit in society." The truth is that the issue is quite complex and not nearly as black and white as folks tend to paint it. There are varying shades of gray.
I could pontificate further, but I won't. People write dissertations about issues of crime and poverty and education and welfare and how they all intersect. It would be arrogant of me to even try to scratch the surface of such things in my silly li'l blog.
Dave linked root causes of poverty and crime . . . .
in any event, the point is that repeat offenders are indigent because of their records. They're not "deserving poor". Why should I have to pay for them to get legal counsel? Or better yet, what moral claim to these lawbreakers have on my hard-earned money?
Keep spouting them talking points, guy. It's working for the right really well these days.
Dave, I suspect, come January 21, 2009, we will have a GOP president.
Sure, and as long as it's Ron Paul, all will be good. If, of course, we even have an election next year.
Mr. Anonymous
You ask why should you pay for some repeat offender to get legal counsel or what moral claim they have on your hard earned $$.
Your constitutional rights are violated each and every time a "scumbag" repeat offenders rights are violated. The only person sticking up for your rights in that situation is the public defender. In effect your tax dollars are hard at work protecting YOU.
Let me summarize our anonymous poster's views of the criminal justice system in one simple equation:
money = justice.
Period.
Hello,
Paul and Jay, yes, one who is acquitted has not been proven innocent, but has only not been proven guilty. But that's just it: the burden of proof is on the accuser, and until and unless that burden is met, the person is presumed to be innocent.
One issue Paul raised that I haven't seen a response to: prior bad acts. Having committed crimes before does not necessarily mean that the person has committed this particular crime, or for that matter any crime at all after one's last conviction. Each case needs to be decided on its own merits.
On another issue: yes, it is true that some people are at fault for their own indigency. However, even those people do and should have a right to paid-for counsel, simply because being at fault for their own poverty does not equate to being at fault for a given crime (or any crime), and we need to help them have attorneys to hold the State to its proof.
One thing we should keep in mind is that not only is convicting an innocent person very bad in itself, but also for many crimes it enables the guilty person to get away with it. That's a lose-lose-lose situation for the innocent convict, the present and past victims and society in general which still has another criminal at large.
Moikb is absolutely right. Public defenders, no less than police officers, are paid and trained to protect everyone's rights, including yours. Not in the same way, but they do protect your rights.
Cheers,
Jeff Deutsch
Post a Comment