THE law entitles a citizen
accused to a public defender if they are indigent. Indigent would be defined as
receiving government assistance for subsistence (unemployment, food stamps, and
public housing). The courts require proof of this and to receive a public
defender without financially qualifying is a theft offense, which is a crime of
moral turpitude and serious. Most people think that a public defender is free
to them. It is not. Although the taxpayers pay for this legal service (some
counties have a public defender’s office- others use a wheel court appointment
system), it is not free to the citizen accused. The law allows the court to
order the defendant to pay back the services (at a much discounted rate) back
as a condition of the plea or sentence. If it is a dismissal, the judge can
order these fees paid back (proof) before the dismissal is signed. The court appointment
system does not amount to getting a “free lawyer.”
People in prison make the
distinction of “free world” lawyers versus court appointed lawyers. If you ask
anyone in prison to share the horror stories of public defenders, undoubtedly
you will hear stories of how the public defender “works with the system” (and
not for you). Although this is not true, the perception remains. Do judges
prefer to use court appointed lawyers and public defenders that plead cases to
lessen their dockets? Although this is not always true, once again the
perception remains. So what is the difference between a court appointed lawyer
and one that is privately retained?
The fact is most public defenders
are not specialized in one particular aspect of criminal law (DWI, for example).
A public defender’s workload is generally heavy and it is a fact that they make
less per case than a privately retained one. Does this translate into getting
lesser service or results? Not necessarily. But training, resources, and
specialization are very important considerations to factor into choosing
representation.
The Coffey Firm associates and I purposely
do not take court appointments. We do not feel that it is fair to unduly burden
ourselves with our resources when we have retained clients that are paying for
our time, attention and reputation. In addition, we provide physical facilities
and ample staff to accommodate our clients and their needs during normal
working hours. Being available for our clients is part of the fee they pay us
for, versus getting paid a court appearance, which is typical for a court appointed
lawyer. Court appointed lawyers must fight to get paid for non-court time and
often are not compensated fairly for such. This is not a problem with privately
retained lawyers. Court appointed lawyers also do not have the resources
available for top continued legal education (for example, expensive specialized
seminars). Often it is this difference in training which results in drastically
different results given the same set of facts.
Much like in the field of
medicine or taking your car for repairs at a shop that specializes in that
brand of car or car repair, court appointed lawyers as a general rule do not
hold the level of knowledge or specialization in a particular field which can
make all the difference in a case result. It is vital that our courts continue
to appoint lawyers to the indigent who cannot afford specialized retained
counsel; however, it is just as important for the public to understand the
distinct disadvantages of such.
Knowledge is power. Lawyers are
not “one size fits all.” Court appointed lawyers are critical in democracy to
uphold the rights and protections of those who cannot afford to defend
themselves, but this does guarantee they will get the best representation or
even have a say in who is appointed (courts determine this). My personal
favorite quote on hiring lawyers is by Red Adair, “If you think it’s expensive
to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.”
Comments