Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In part 1 of this article, we began examining the economic realities Lawyers face in taking Court Appointed cases. In this second part, we'll focus on how that economic strain translates into time spent, or not spent, resolving a Client's case, and how that affects the level of service that is ultimately provided.

Beyond time and money, there is another, even less obvious factor that comes into play when we compare having your own Lawyer to taking one who has been Court Appointed. In my Practice, having a Client come in to hire me is almost always the by product of their deciding they like what I have to offer, and my thinking I can help them. In other words, there is sort of a mutual selection that has taken place. If the Client calls my Office and feels alienated, or if I speak with them and think they're nuts, then it's not likely we'll be meeting.

When I take a person's money, I feel a very serious responsibility to them to do whatever is necessary to produce the best outcome humanly possible. After all, they paid me.

When the Court pays someone, and the pairing of Attorney-Client has been by chance, that bond and that sense of agreement and understanding are simply not there. That's not to say that any particular Court Appointed Lawyer will neglect his or her Client's interests, it's just that, no matter how you slice it, that bond, understanding, sense of obligation, handshake, or whatever is NOT there, and never will be. Either side can always think "I didn't hire you" or "you didn't pick me."

In fact, it has been noted that there is at least a concern that because it is the Court, and not the Client who pays the Lawyer, the Attorney might be far more afraid to test the Court's patience, rather than the Clients. Think about it this way: one frustrated Client dealing with an otherwise happy Court passing on Appointments is worth more than one happy Client and a frustrated Court who might direct appointments away from a Lawyer who is seen as inefficient in wrapping cases up and moving them through. Remember who signs the check.

Then there is the matter of time spent with a Client before and during the case. The way I see it, I am paid to explain every aspect of a case to my Client. In a DUI, for example, I'll meet with my Client for 1 and ½ to 2 hours at our first Appointment. I will begin preparing the Client to take the legally required Alcohol Evaluation. My Client leaves not only with my phone number, but my "personal-business" e-mail so they can get in touch with me as other questions or concerns come up.

Continue reading "Michigan Criminal Law - Should I just go with a Court-Appointed Lawyer? - Part 2" »

One question that comes up from time to time within my Criminal Practice is "should I just go with a Court-Appointed Lawyer?" This is almost always preceded by an explanation that the questioner either has no money, or not a lot of it. This article will focus on that question, and will be broken into 2 parts.

Let's narrow that focus, however, to the types of Criminal cases that I handle. Thus, we are not talking about what are called "Capital cases," meaning those that carry a term of up to life imprisonment, and usually involve such crimes as Murder, Rape, Armed Robbery, and the like.

Instead, we'll focus on the rather garden-variety Misdemeanor case, or a light-to-medium severity Felony case. Typically, this will involve charges ranging from DUI, Suspended License and other Driving charges to things like Possession of Marijuana, Cocaine, Analogues, or other Drugs, up to Felony DUI matters. The idea here is that we are NOT talking about Murder, Rape or Armed Robbery type charges.

Let me begin by pointing out that when facing a Criminal charge, having a Lawyer is better than not having a Lawyer. The same thing goes for dealing with an injury. Better to have a Doctor than not.

At this point the reader is probably figuring that I'm going to begin an analysis of how and why Court-Appointed Lawyers are so inferior to those Practicing Privately. That's not the case. Instead, I'm going to examine the realities of the paycheck, and how that affects the level of service someone can expect.

Before we begin our analysis, I should point out that, contrary to popular opinion, a person represented by a Court-Appointed Lawyer must repay the Court. They are NOT free.

There is always some rumbling every year within the Legal Community about the need to increase the payment for Court Appointed Lawyers. The truth is, the Fee schedules that most Court-Appointed Attorneys work under was always below market in terms of compensation, and it has either remained relatively unchanged in the last umpteen years, or, in some cases, has actually gone down. It is generally recognized that within the economic realities of today's world, these Fees are bottom of the barrel. Compared to the Fees of a Private Lawyer (see my Fee Schedule), it seems like welfare.

This generally accounts for the notion that Court Appointed Lawyers are very often young, inexperienced "newbies" learning to "cut their teeth" in the real world. While that's not completely true, at least within the parameters of the kinds of cases I handle, any veteran Lawyer making his or her living on the Court-Appointed rolls, is generally not perceived (whether correctly or not) as having the "stuff" to be successful.

Continue reading "Michigan Criminal Law - Should I just go with a Court-Appointed Lawyer? - Part 1" »