creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
25 May 2012
The Next Education President

Mitt Romney is right about one thing: Too many American children do receive what he this week called a … Read More.

23 May 2012
Susan Mary Riley, We Will Miss You

It's her voice that I keep hearing in my head. "Susan," she would say, in that quiet, commanding … Read More.

18 May 2012
Boring

When my kids were young, about the worst thing they could say about something was that it was capital-b BORRRING.… Read More.

The Right to a Lawyer

Share Comment

If you were charged with a crime, would you rather be rich and guilty or poor and innocent?

Every year, when I ask my students that question, rich and guilty wins by a mile. And who am I to say they are wrong? After all, over the years, I've had my share of success in securing reversals of the convictions of many criminal defendants a jury had found to be guilty. While I try to do my share of pro bono work, the truth is that most of my clients can afford me. And the ones who can't are generally people I take on precisely because they were so poorly represented in the first place.

Anyone who watches television knows that if you're facing possible imprisonment, you have a right to a lawyer, and that if you can't afford to pay, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you. But there is a difference between a lawyer and a good lawyer.

Look at all the idiots who pass the Bar, I remind my students every year, as they fret about their chances of passing. It's true. And while the market is hardly a perfect judge of talent, and while there are many public defenders offices around the country staffed by capable and dedicated lawyers, there is a definite correlation between competence and cost.

The lawyers who make their livings by taking appointments to represent those who can't afford counsel are not the lawyers you would hire if you had the resources to choose. And the reimbursement rates paid to those lawyers create powerful incentives not to investigate or prepare (you get more for court time than prep time) and not to take a case to trial (you are limited on total hours, even in court). Unfortunately, the old saw that you get what you pay for holds true much more often than it should.

The consequences of bad representation can be every bit as serious as the consequences of bad medicine. There are horror stories of appointed counsel doing no investigation even in capital cases; giving terrible advice to clients that results in sentences of 20 years instead of two; and falling asleep in murder trials and failing to even present exculpatory evidence.

And what do courts do when these problems are brought to their attention? Usually, nothing.

To be sure, the Constitution guarantees more than the right to have someone with a Bar card by your side when you lose your liberty.

It's not just the assistance of counsel, but the "effective" assistance that is required by due process. Traditionally, though, "effective" doesn't necessarily mean awake, alert or informed.

That is why this week's decision by the United States Supreme Court is so important. The Court held that a legal resident who pleaded guilty after his lawyer advised him — wrongly — that doing so would not result in his automatic deportation had been denied effective assistance of counsel. For the thousands of legal immigrants who are charged with minor crimes every year, the real punishment is not measured in terms of prison time (usually, they plead guilty because they are promised no prison time or very little), but in the laws that now provide for automatic deportation.

In the case before the Supreme Court, a man who had lived in this country legally for 40 years was faced with a marijuana charge. He pleaded guilty and accepted a much-reduced sentence only after his lawyer assured him that it would have no impact on his immigration status.

Even a cursory review of the applicable law would have told her she was wrong. But like too many lawyers, she didn't bother to review the law before offering advice. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court concluded that he had been denied effective assistance.

Immigrants' rights advocates are hailing the decision as a major victory. To me, the Court's decision is less about the rights of immigrants than the responsibilities of lawyers. We can't guarantee that every defendant will receive the same quality of representation that O.J. Simpson got. But raising the floor of what counts as "effective" is not only right as a matter of fairness. It is also critical to public faith in the criminal justice system, and to the willingness of individuals (and jurors) to trust that system, to cooperate with police and prosecutors, and to return a verdict.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

6 Comments | Post Comment
"Look at all the idiots who pass the Bar, I remind my students every year, as they fret about their chances of passing." If, they are idiots then, why are they allowed to take the Bar?
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Thu Apr 1, 2010 10:59 PM
Finally the truth about lawyers - many are idiots. Most are in Congress!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Early
Fri Apr 2, 2010 8:27 AM
I am against socialism and am very unhappy with the direction Obama is taking industry and health care in this country. However, if you read the Constitution, there are phrases that could be used to "socialize" legal representation. The one place the US Constitution mandates equality is before the law. Think about that. Why not cap all lawyer pay and make the selection of lawyers for defense something that is done by the state? Clearly with our society drowning in legalese you can no longer consider a team of lawyers vs a single pro bono lawyer equality before the law. Plus, the schadenfreude of the lawyers finally getting theirs would almost be overwhelming.
Comment: #3
Posted by: scott365
Fri Apr 2, 2010 10:02 AM
I disagree. If the State is going to license lawyers then any licensed lawyer should be sufficient and there should not be any questening of the quaflity of representation. The simple fact is that no lawyer knows all of the laws in this Country. If you started reading the US Code and the Federal Regulations you wouild never finish. They create new ones faster than you can read them. It is interesting that those who are most in favor of State control are the first to try to avoid its consequences.
Comment: #4
Posted by: John Harry
Sat Apr 3, 2010 7:39 AM
For David, "they" fill out the necessary forms and send in the fee. Doesn't matter if they graduated from the top of their class or near the bottom. As long as they finished and passed. Doesn't matter if they took three years or six to finish law school. They fill out the forms and send in the fee. Once the check clears, they are welcome to sit the Bar. And depending on the state you live in, they can take it as many times as they can afford to.
Comment: #5
Posted by: capiscan
Mon Apr 5, 2010 5:44 AM
How do I get in touch with Ms. Estrich?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Kelly Pickens
Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:43 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

6 Jun 2008 Gay Marriage -- and Divorce

3 Sep 2008 Sarah's Choice

16 Apr 2008 Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea