Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Quid Pro Quo

dollars.jpg

The bailiff's call came right before noon.  "Get over here this afternoon with a check for $75, and you'll get a case."  The judge was in a tight race for re-election, and he was pulling out all the stops.  Normally, the 34 judges here in the common pleas court take a two-week rotation on the arraignment bench; this judge had swapped with others, with the result that he'd spent half of the past four months handling arraignments.  Why?  Because the arraigning judge is the one who hands out assignments for criminal cases, and lawyers were willing to contribute money to his campaign in return for those assignments.

That was twenty-five years ago.  I didn't go over and give him a check, I didn't get any assignments, and the judge lost the election.  That's not because my heart is pure.  Go to any judge's fundraiser come campaign time, and you'll see that about three-quarters of the people in attendance are criminal defense lawyers.  I'm likely to be one of them.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for books with gavel.jpg

On the surface, why we do that is difficult to understand.  What we're getting in return for our campaign contribution is a chance to earn about a third of what we're worth.  Assigned counsel work for felonies in Cuyahoga County pays $50 to $60 an hour, but because of the caps on fees -- $1,000 for a first degree felony, lower than 78 of the other 88 counties in Ohio -- it works out to about $38 an hour, according to last year's figures.

But there are attorneys who make a lot of money off of assigned counsel work.  You bill two hours for setting up the file and preparing the motions that actually take you about five minutes to do, you handle five pretrials in a morning and charge an hour on each one, and it adds up.  (Or you charge four hours on each one; one Cleveland lawyer made $130,000 in assigned counsel fees last year, which would have required him to work 3300 hours.  The big firms would kill for a guy who could generate 3300 billable hours in year.)

I've talked about assigned counsel fees on previous occasions, and more so in the past few weeks.  I've been concentrating on the low rate of pay, because I think that's a critical factor.  America is built on the capitalistic principle that you get what you pay for, and if you pay lawyers lousy fees to represent poor people, you're going to get lousy representation.

But the converse of that -- paying attorneys more money ensures better representation -- isn't necessarily true, and it's certainly not the whole story.  There may be some structural problems in how indigent representation is handled, particularly in how cases are assigned.  That's what the judges in Travis County, Texas, have decided recently.  Under their present system, the judge who handles the case assigns counsel for the defendant, from a list of qualified attorneys.  The judges have proposed establishing an office which would oversee the system and handle the assignments.

The problem, as the judges see it, is the independence of assigned counsel.  That's a particular concern under their system, because the one handling the assignments is the judge who's presiding over the case.  Although the judge picks the lawyer in rotation from a list, what the lawyer eventually gets paid is largely determined by the judge.

The problem here in this county isn't quite that bad, at least at first glance; as I mentioned, it's the arraigning judge, not the judge handling the case, who assigns counsel.  (That's only for the trial court proceedings, though; counsel for an appeal is assigned by the judge who presided over the case.)  But there are still problems.  Although there's a list, there's no requirement that the judge pick attorneys in order from it; I've seen some lawyers get as many as five or six assigned cases from a single judge's rotation in the arraignment room.  What's more, the judge handling the case still has some control over it.  If the judge doesn't like the prospect of having to try your case, that might tailor your discussions with your client, especially knowing that the judge is the one who's going to have to approve your application for extraordinary fees.  And that gets back to a point I made a while ago about lawyers who think it's a compliment when judges tell them they have good "client control."  It's not; what the judge really means is that he can count on you to get your client to plead so that he can move his docket along.  If word gets around that you're a guy who forces a lot of cases to trial, that might impact the number of future assignments you get.

And let's face it:  the standard ethical principle for both lawyers and judges is avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.  It's tough to argue that having a system where lawyers give campaign contributions to judges so that judges will assign them cases doesn't create at least that appearance.

Unfortunately, that makes reforming the assigned counsel system a tougher go than it might otherwise be.  Judges like the contributions, and lawyers like the money from the assigned cases.  Changing the system to eliminate that quid pro quo isn't going to find favor from either party.

Back about 12 years ago, the ACLU and a number of other organizations were all ready to sue the county over the indigent fee system here.  One group balked, effectively killing the suit:   the Cuyahoga Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, the organized bar from criminal defense attorneys here.  You're not going to get the county to cough up more money for assigned counsel fees if all it means is that attorneys, good and bad alike, are making more money.  A lot of assigned attorneys give their best to represent defendants, but some don't.  Any change in the system is going to come with more oversight -- meaning fewer attorneys will qualify, especially for the top cases -- and with less possibility of gaming the system to get more cases.  Getting everyone to agree to kill that particular golden goose is going to take some effort.

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 4, 2015
    What's Up in the 8th
    Here's a tip: if you're lead counsel on a rape case, and your office mate and co-counsel starts talking about coming up with $50,000 for the victim as a "compensation package," run. Marc Doumbas wishes he'd done that. Back in...
  • August 3, 2015
    Case Update
    Ascendancy of the liberal bloc in SCOTUS, new laws from the Ohio legislature, and a good search case from the 6th District
  • July 31, 2015
    Friday Roundup
    Tales from the drug war
  • July 30, 2015
    P2P and child porn
    Peer-to-peer networks allow people to distribute child pornography without knowing it. Should sentencing reflect that?
  • July 29, 2015
    Sentencing "reform"
    If you're talking about reducing the prison population, drug offenses isn't where it's at
  • July 28, 2015
    Case Update
    Bad language, bad law, and bad cases
  • July 24, 2015
    Pre-indictment delay
    The law on pre-indictment delay gets a big boost -- for defendants anyway -- in the 8th District's en banc decision in State v. Jones
  • July 23, 2015
    Manana
    Some stuff came up, so I'll be doing my post about the 8th District's en banc decision on pre-indictment delay tomorrow. I handled the case, and I need little prompting to blog about a case I win. (Normally I need...
  • July 22, 2015
    Once bitten, twice shy
    The 8th District broadens the reach of 404(B) evidence in child sex abuse cases
  • July 21, 2015
    What's Up in the 8th
    Good times for (some) defendants at the Lakefront