On the blog Otherwise, NJ Advisory Committee Suggests Supreme Court Re-examine Bar on Contingent Fees in Criminal Cases. It examines a disciplinary matter where a New Jersey attorney promised a fee reduction if he couldn't get a traffic citation reduced. The ethics committee suggests a re-examination of the rule against contingent fees in criminal cases.

"S.F. defense attorney [was] busted for interfering with the arrest of a client on an existing warrant who was just released from custody because of crime lab misconduct. The lawyer took the client's wallet as the client was being hooked up. The cops asked for it back, and he refused. They told him to hand it over, and he refused. He was then arrested. Two counterfeit $50s were allegedly found in the wallet.

An intimate relationship between defense counsel and a prosecutor was not enough to establish an actual conflict. Commonwealth v. Stote, SJC-09582 (March 5, 2010):

If the fact of the relationship in Croken, which was serious enough to lead to cohabitation (during the representation), was not sufficient standing alone to establish an actual conflict of interest, the relationship between Walsh and the ADA standing alone is similarly not sufficient. Walsh and the ADA's year-long relationship was surely more than a brief, casual affair, yet we cannot conclude that it was an intimate relationship similar to a marriage. Particularly as they did not live together, their relationship was not conducive to "inadvertent breaches of confidentiality," as cohabitation or marriage is. Id. at 274, quoting ABA Criminal Justice Section, Ethical Problems Facing the Criminal Defense Lawyer 248 (1995) (Ethical Problems) (noting potential for such breaches occasioned, e.g., by receiving telephone calls and messages at home, by working at home, or by explaining absence from home). Nor is there reason to believe that Walsh and the ADA developed a financial or personal interest in each other's careers, that is, that the ADA's professional advancement would have redounded to Walsh's benefit or vice versa. Cf. Croken, supra, quoting Ethical Problems, supra at 249 ("district attorney or public defender may have a special interest in the outcome of a case based on a concern for a promotion or political benefit for one's spouse"). Because the ADA was not handling the Commonwealth's case on appeal, there is no reason to believe that the Commonwealth's success in that appeal could have resulted in any professional benefit for her. In other words, Walsh's relationship with the ADA gave him no incentive to provide less than fully vigorous representation of his client.

In Croken, supra at 274-276, although we could not conclude on the papers that there was in fact an actual conflict, we did conclude that the defendant's motion and affidavits raised substantial questions that had not been adequately answered by the Commonwealth. Here, in contrast, the Commonwealth has provided evidence negating the existence of an actual conflict. Both Walsh and the ADA swear that no confidential information about Stote was disclosed, and there is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise. The ADA further swears that she had no involvement in the Commonwealth's side of Stote's appeal and knew nothing about the case until she read our opinion. This is corroborated by the trial prosecutor, who swears that she worked alone on the Commonwealth's brief and never discussed the case with the ADA. Walsh, the ADA, and the trial prosecutor, all officers of the court, bear a duty of candor toward the tribunal, see generally Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3, 426 Mass. 1383 (1998), and the consequences for presenting false or misleading evidence to the court are potentially very serious. On this record, the judge properly concluded, without the need for an evidentiary hearing, that Walsh's representation of Stote was not impaired by his relationship with the ADA, that is, that there was no actual conflict of interest. See Mass. R.Crim. P. 30(c)(3), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001) ("judge may rule ... on the basis of the facts alleged in the affidavits without further hearing if no substantial issue is raised by the motion or affidavits").

Hat tip to LegalProfessionBlog.com.

Liz Cheney identifies Gitmo lawyers with clients, and even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kenneth Starr came to their defense:

"I've been a military lawyer for almost 30 years, I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts, and I gave them my all," said Graham. "This system of justice that we're so proud of in America requires the unpopular to have an advocate and every time a defense lawyer fights to make the government do their job, that defense lawyer has made us all safer."

But, will the wingnuts buy into this new McCarthyism?

I read about this trial a few days ago; now the result: Lawyer Acquitted of Charge He Raped Would-Be Client; Defense Argued Consent, from ABAJ.com. The lawyer is already doing five years for taking cocaine for fees.

On ABAJ.com: Suspect Reportedly Confesses to Lawyer, Helps Police Find Bodies.

Is this lawyer now a witness?

For you forensic science junkies: 50 Fascinating Documentaries for Forensics Science Junkies. [Hat tip to ForensicScienceTechnician.org.]

Just as importantly, jurors watch these shows. Case in point: I was crossing a narc about my client's fingerprints not being on the bag of dope, and the cop said that they couldn't raise fingerprints from that so they didn't try. I said, "Do you watch X show on TLC [or Discovery Channel, or truTV, take your pick]. Just a month ago they were showing how it's done."

If four jurors weren't nodding with me, I would have been afraid it went over their heads. It's not. Not guilty.

Remember: NACDL's 3d annual forensics seminar "Making Sense of Science III" is March 26-27 at Harrah's in Las Vegas.

$10,000 for a phone call a reasonable fee? Depends on the call.

Reminds me of a story I heard, maybe in law school, about Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under President Johnson, who as a lawyer, listened to a client's tale of woe and quoted and received a $25,000 fee. He made one telephone call, and the problem went away. The client, happy with the result, felt he was overcharged. Legend has it that Clifford said: "You wanted me to drag it out? Your problem is over, and the fee is earned."

The problem's over; the right guy fixed it. Fee earned.

Assaulting your lawyer in court is never a good idea because the mistrial motion is almost always denied. Depending on how bad the lawyer is hurt, however, the case goes on.

A Minnesota lawyer was sentenced to five years fed time and goes on trial next week for allegedly raping a client. His downfall, he says? Drugs.