Criminal Law - Court Appointed Lawyers

The Sixth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution guarantees anyone accused of a crime for which they can be imprisoned the right to an attorney. This right has been repeatedly confirmed in a series of Supreme Court cases including the most famous, Gideon v. Wainwright.

Crimes for which the punishment is a fine only (for example traffic tickets) do not carry this guarantee.

If you're reading this then it is likely either you or a loved one have been accused of a crime, and the question you have is "Do I get a Court Appointed attorney?"

For purposes of this blawg entry I am going to assume it is you who have been accused.

There are two misconceptions I want to clear up right away. The first is, court appointed doesn't necessarily mean free. In order to qualify for a court appointed attorney a judge must make a decision that you are indigent and unable to afford an attorney. It is common practice for a judge to look at your finances and decide that, no, you don't have the money to afford an attorney right away but at the same time you are financially capable of making payments to the county which will be applied against your appointed attorney's fees. If you can't afford to do this, then the judge will likely give you an attorney and not require you to make payments yet. That yet is important because if you plead guilty or are found guilty after trial and placed on probation, as a part of that probation you will be required to reimburse the county for the money they paid your attorney. Typically, the amount which was paid to the attorney was significantly lower than what you would have been charged if you had hired them.

Another misconception that people have is that court appointed attorneys are not good attorneys. Most of the attorneys that agree to handle these cases do so because they like to do criminal law. It is fun, is not as paperwork intensive as civil law, and is often resolved much faster so there is no time for the case to become stale and uninteresting.

On the other end of the spectrum there are some attorneys who take these kind of cases because they are "easy money". Their only thought is to plead you out quickly so they can make the most money for as little effort as possible. Unfortunately, this is often condoned by the prosecutor, who wants his conviction record to look as good as possible, and the judge, who wants to keep their docket moving. In these type of cases the Defendant is not represented correctly and is often convinced to take a plea bargain that is not in their best interest.

The main disadvantage to the court appointed attorney system is that the attorney you are given is a gamble. You do not get to pick who your attorney is, therefore you may end up with a great one or you may end up with a bad one. The second disadvantage is that you often will not receive the same "hand holding" as a client who has paid for their lawyer. In my opinion, lawyers don't do a worse job for the people to whom they have been court appointed clients, it's just that these clients do not get all the frills and personal attention as those who have paid thousands of dollars for the lawyer's services.

If you are facing this decision and have the financial capabilities to hire an attorney then you should do so. First for ethical reasons, the system was designed for those who truly cannot afford an attorney. The second reason you should retain counsel is so that you can choose who will represent you.

We will discuss the factors to look at in choosing an attorney in a later blawg article.