Choosing the right criminal defense lawyer
by Richard Barbuto
Almost every jurisdiction in the United States allows lawyers, after passing the jurisdiction's bar exam to practice law. Unfortunately, passing a bar exam does not make someone any good at practicing law. Being a criminal defense lawyer, I will confine my remarks to that particular practice.
After graduating and passing a bar exam most jurisdictions will encourage practitioners to engage in Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and some jurisdictions have mandatory CLE. For example, NY has Mandatory CLE while MA does not.
Clearly, keeping up with the law where you practice is a good idea (I have a fine grasp of the obvious). But when I say keeping up with the law I mean a lot more than just having a passing familiarity with criminal law, criminal procedure Law, the Rules of Evidence, etc. Keeping up in the law school areas is only a little more than scratching the surface these days.
In this day and age the practice of criminal law, once a specialty itself, now has many sub-specialties. We see appeals lawyers, DWI lawyers, white collar crime lawyers and the list goes on. Does your case involve a fatal shooting? If so, does your lawyer know enough about tool larks, ballistics and forensic pathology? Does your lawyer know how to cross examine a medical examiner?
The trial of a criminal case is a very serious undertaking. From a defendant's point of view, an unsuccessful result often means incarceration, sometimes for years, or worse, death. The civil bar likes to talk of civil actions where millions of dollars are at stake. Ask Bernie Madoff how much he would pay to spend the last years of his life a free man.
So why do we see criminal defense lawyers trying cases without the requisite knowledge needed to provide the very best defense possible? I do not profess to know all the answers to this question but I know some of them. Inadequate training, lack of knowledge, the lack of experience, too many cases, greed, the desire to get one's name in the newspaper. The list could fill a page so let's just look at a few of them.
How much experience does your lawyer have? Has she tried felony cases? I often hear young lawyers proclaim they have tried and won 20 cases. Twenty cases is not a lot. And if the cases were misdemeanor trials rather than felony trials the number is almost meaningless. Someone that has tried a bunch of petty larceny and minor drug cases really should not be trying murder cases. When searching for a lawyer to try your case you need to know the types of trials she has done as well as the number.
As I noted above, NY has mandatory CLE. Initially, a law school graduate must take 36 hours of CLE over a 2 year period in what is known as a "bridge the gap" program which, not surprisingly, is supposed to bridge the gap between law school and the practice of law. Thereafter, lawyers are required to take 24 hours of CLE, including 4 hours of ethics, over a 2 year period. In my view, mandatory CLE is very good for the profession. As does any other program, it has flaws. Since CLE has become mandatory, everybody and their mother has become a CLE "provider." Some are very good at it and some are just in it to make money. It has become a huge industry and is driven, at least in part, by profit margins. Gone are the days when people put on CLE programs mostly for the benefit of the profession.
I put together a CLE program in New York City about a year ago for a statewide criminal defense association. It was titled "Murder, Mayhem and Other Bad Stuff" and included lectures on cross examining a medical examiner, DNA and the cross examination of a snitch (What the government likes to call a cooperating witness) among others. The program was well received, had excellent attendance, was informative and made some money for the association. A success in all respects BUT it just scratched the surface of the topics presented. Lawyers must then continue on their own to increase their knowledge and expertise. Listening to a one hour presentation on cross examining a snitch does not an expert make.
I have heard families of just convicted defendants say too many times that their lawyer just seemed in over her head, or words to that effect. Sometimes defense lawyers don't investigate cases or interview experts the way they should. How does this happen?
Some lawyers just love to be on TV or see their name in the newspapers. They have an obsessive desire for publicity. Sometimes the best interests of the client get lost in the search for the camera. It often matters not to these lawyers that they do not have a clue about how to try the case. Then there are the big money cases where you see attorneys circling like vultures around a wealthy client just waiting to promise him the world.
As you can begin to see, there is much to be considered when choosing the correct lawyer for your case. Take your time and choose wisely. And remember, the lawyer works for you, not the other way around.
After graduating and passing a bar exam most jurisdictions will encourage practitioners to engage in Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and some jurisdictions have mandatory CLE. For example, NY has Mandatory CLE while MA does not.
Clearly, keeping up with the law where you practice is a good idea (I have a fine grasp of the obvious). But when I say keeping up with the law I mean a lot more than just having a passing familiarity with criminal law, criminal procedure Law, the Rules of Evidence, etc. Keeping up in the law school areas is only a little more than scratching the surface these days.
In this day and age the practice of criminal law, once a specialty itself, now has many sub-specialties. We see appeals lawyers, DWI lawyers, white collar crime lawyers and the list goes on. Does your case involve a fatal shooting? If so, does your lawyer know enough about tool larks, ballistics and forensic pathology? Does your lawyer know how to cross examine a medical examiner?
The trial of a criminal case is a very serious undertaking. From a defendant's point of view, an unsuccessful result often means incarceration, sometimes for years, or worse, death. The civil bar likes to talk of civil actions where millions of dollars are at stake. Ask Bernie Madoff how much he would pay to spend the last years of his life a free man.
So why do we see criminal defense lawyers trying cases without the requisite knowledge needed to provide the very best defense possible? I do not profess to know all the answers to this question but I know some of them. Inadequate training, lack of knowledge, the lack of experience, too many cases, greed, the desire to get one's name in the newspaper. The list could fill a page so let's just look at a few of them.
How much experience does your lawyer have? Has she tried felony cases? I often hear young lawyers proclaim they have tried and won 20 cases. Twenty cases is not a lot. And if the cases were misdemeanor trials rather than felony trials the number is almost meaningless. Someone that has tried a bunch of petty larceny and minor drug cases really should not be trying murder cases. When searching for a lawyer to try your case you need to know the types of trials she has done as well as the number.
As I noted above, NY has mandatory CLE. Initially, a law school graduate must take 36 hours of CLE over a 2 year period in what is known as a "bridge the gap" program which, not surprisingly, is supposed to bridge the gap between law school and the practice of law. Thereafter, lawyers are required to take 24 hours of CLE, including 4 hours of ethics, over a 2 year period. In my view, mandatory CLE is very good for the profession. As does any other program, it has flaws. Since CLE has become mandatory, everybody and their mother has become a CLE "provider." Some are very good at it and some are just in it to make money. It has become a huge industry and is driven, at least in part, by profit margins. Gone are the days when people put on CLE programs mostly for the benefit of the profession.
I put together a CLE program in New York City about a year ago for a statewide criminal defense association. It was titled "Murder, Mayhem and Other Bad Stuff" and included lectures on cross examining a medical examiner, DNA and the cross examination of a snitch (What the government likes to call a cooperating witness) among others. The program was well received, had excellent attendance, was informative and made some money for the association. A success in all respects BUT it just scratched the surface of the topics presented. Lawyers must then continue on their own to increase their knowledge and expertise. Listening to a one hour presentation on cross examining a snitch does not an expert make.
I have heard families of just convicted defendants say too many times that their lawyer just seemed in over her head, or words to that effect. Sometimes defense lawyers don't investigate cases or interview experts the way they should. How does this happen?
Some lawyers just love to be on TV or see their name in the newspapers. They have an obsessive desire for publicity. Sometimes the best interests of the client get lost in the search for the camera. It often matters not to these lawyers that they do not have a clue about how to try the case. Then there are the big money cases where you see attorneys circling like vultures around a wealthy client just waiting to promise him the world.
As you can begin to see, there is much to be considered when choosing the correct lawyer for your case. Take your time and choose wisely. And remember, the lawyer works for you, not the other way around.
1 Comments:
It would be nice if lawyers remembered they work for us but that has not been our experience. They treat us like we are stupid and imply we should just let them do their job. By doing that, our loved one is now in prison for a crime that never happened! So much for doing their job!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home