On ABAJ.com: Lawyer Says She Didn’t Know Client Funds Were Tainted; Prosecutors, Client Say She Did, by Mark Hansen, as the case of the San Jose criminal defense lawyer on trial goes to the jury.

Is veteran San Jose, Calif. criminal defense lawyer Jamie Harley a conniving crook who knowingly laundered money on behalf of a dirty client, as prosecutors allege, or an overly trusting person who didn't know what her client was up to, as she and her lawyers suggest?

The answer rests with a federal jury in San Jose, which began deliberations Thursday in a high-stakes money laundering trial against the prominent 53-year-old lawyer, better known in local legal circles by her previous name, Jamie Harmon, the San Jose Mercury News reported Thursday.

Supreme Court tosses suit over public defenders by Doug Guthrie in The Detroit News:

Lansing --The Michigan Supreme Court reversed itself today and threw out a lawsuit that was aimed at holding the state responsible for failure to provide adequate funding to hire lawyers for poor people accused of crimes.

The state's high court in April upheld earlier favorable lower court decisions for the lawsuit brought by eight men and women convicted in Berrien, Genesee and Muskegon counties against the state and Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Intended to become a class-action lawsuit that would include all people convicted of crimes in Michigan while represented by court-appointed counsel, the case appeared headed for trial in Ingham County Circuit Court until today's abrupt reversal.

The case is not yet on the Michigan Court's website.

A juvenile accused of a forced sex offense did not have a right to have an attorney or his parents present for execution of a search warrant for his DNA because it was not a "critical stage" of the proceedings. State v. Poitra, 2010 ND 137, 2010 N.D. LEXIS 132 (July 13, 2010):

[*P25] In general, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to an attorney before submitting DNA during the execution of a search warrant. See, e.g., McClain v. State, 410 N.E.2d 1297, 1303 (Ind. 1980) (no right to counsel during execution of a search warrant for internal body secretions, swab emission test does not involve attempts to get testimony or assertions and is not a critical stage of the proceedings); State v. Delisle, 630 A.2d 767 (N.H. 1993) (a defendant does not have a right to an attorney prior to giving blood samples pursuant to a warrant); Hale v. State, 220 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App. 2007) (no right to counsel when taking a saliva sample for DNA testing because it was not a critical stage of the proceedings). Poitra fails to cite any authority granting juveniles greater protections in executing a search warrant than an adult criminal defendant receives.

[*P26] Unlike cases where a juvenile must consent or refuse to take a chemical test, a juvenile does not have a choice whether to provide evidence when a search warrant has been issued. ...

"Understanding Retainers and Flat Fees," by Doug Richmond. Abstract:

The law generally recognizes lawyers' right to reasonable fees for their services. For years, lawyers seeking to secure payment have requested security retainers from clients. Clients who wish to ensure a favored lawyer's availability to represent them in transactions or litigation have long been able to do so by paying general retainers. In recent years, flat fees have received considerable attention as a means of fairly pricing legal services and ensuring predictability in the cost of those services. Yet retainers and flat fees are often misunderstood by courts and lawyers alike. Many lawyers fail to appreciate the professional responsibility aspects of the various forms of retainers and flat fees that they employ. This article explains the practical mechanics and professional responsibility implications of general retainers, security retainers in all their forms, and flat fees. In fact, only general retainers are truly retainers; security retainers and flat fees are actually fee advances. Unfortunately, the term "retainer" is so engrained in the language of the law that the widespread recharacterization or redefinition of the various lawyer-client financial arrangements that the term is intended to describe probably cannot be achieved.

Hat tip to Legal Ethics Forum.