All About Court Appointed Lawyers
Court appointed lawyers are attorneys who are available to defendants who cannot afford a private defense attorney. These court-appointed lawyers must be licensed to practice in the state in which the defendant has been arrested. They are also sometimes called public defenders. The Supreme Court has held that defendants have a right to assistance of counsel. If you cannot afford an attorney, the Court must appoint one to act on your behalf. Many public defender offices and court-appointed attorneys will accept attorney appointment for defendants in criminal court. These are attorneys who are paid for their services by the state or county. Thus, the taxpayer has funded their work as well . When you meet with your lawyer, give them all the details they need to understand your case. Work diligently with them to prepare your best defense. Sometimes, the Court may allow a defendant to select his or her own private attorney who will then be paid for by the Court or other agencies. In these types of cases, there is sometimes a limit to how much the Court will approve paying that attorney. In all cases, however, the Court must ensure that indigent defendants have representation and that they pay the program what they can afford. So sometimes state and county government will waive attorney fees but at other times, they will expect you to repay them on a payment plan.
Success Rates of Court Appointed Lawyers
Several studies have analyzed the success rate of court appointed lawyers in criminal and civil cases. According to an analysis by the Justice Management Institute, indigent defense systems in rural jurisdictions were nearly as effective as those in large urban areas. The report found that the systems were comparable regarding the proportion (20 percent to 23 percent) of criminal cases winning at least one issue on appeal. A study released by the National Center for State Courts in 2014 found that the combination of multiple factors including geographic location and type of case had significant effects on the success rate of court appointed attorneys. Public safety cases (offenses that pose a potential harm to public safety), including murder and sex crimes, had the greatest likelihood of resulting in a successful outcome when contended by a court-appointed attorney, while civil cases were the least likely. The study revealed that in Dangerous Offender cases, court-appointed attorneys were successful 43 percent of the time, compared with 34 percent for criminal cases and four percent for civil cases. The key determining factors were found to be the case type (criminal versus civil), geographic region (urban versus rural) and the severity of the offense.
What Court Appointed Lawyers Struggle With
While court appointed lawyers perform a critical function in our justice system, there are often challenges and limitations that can affect their ability to win your case. Even though the courts attempt to assign lawyers with the best experience for the case, lawyers on court appointment panels are not always available when you need them. It is not uncommon to have to wait several days simply to meet with your attorney after you have been arrested, which can hurt your case right out of the gate.
Common challenges faced by court appointed lawyers include excessive caseloads and limited resources. A large number of criminal defense attorneys depend on court appointment cases as their primary source of income. Court appointments do not pay great fees so these lawyers have numerous cases and limited time to devote to each of their clients. With limited resources and huge caseloads, court appointed lawyers may struggle to give the same level of dedication as privately retained lawyers can give to a case. If you choose a court appointed lawyer, make sure that you get frequent opportunities to discuss your case and that you do not get the impression that your lawyer has too many cases to devote to yours. If you are not happy with the service you are receiving, it may be in your best interest to seek the assistance of a private lawyer.
Do Court Appointed Lawyers Work Out?
This article by the good people at Nolo.com explains the differences between court appointed lawyers and private lawyers:
"Court-appointed, or public defenders are paid for by the taxpayer. They are appointed only to represent criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney. The problem is that public defender offices are routinely overworked and underfunded. This means that the public defender has too many cases on his or her plate to adequately address the needs of any one defendant. Often defendants feel they are treated as if they were on an assembly line. Also, many public defenders are not experienced.
Many people hold the mistaken belief that a private attorney will do a better job than a public defender. Because public defenders are defenders are paid from the taxpayer, the public has more control over their performance. If you hire an attorney, you will have much less control over what that attorney will do. Many private attorneys either handle too many cases or are too inexperienced to be as effective as a good public defender. Many private attorneys are actually less competent than the average public defender.
Choosing a criminal defense attorney is basically a matter of choosing between two evils — but it makes a difference. In a survey conducted by the presiding judge of the Court of Appeals, his office received hundreds of responses from incarcerated defendants asking for a new trial because they felt their attorneys had been ineffective. Most of those disgruntled defendants had private attorneys.
Don’t assume that a private defense lawyer is better than a public defender. Ask to see proof that he or she has previously tried cases to verdict in your federal district court . If a lawyer hasn’t previously tried cases in a particular court, they probably won’t be a good choice. It takes years of practice to learn the ropes.
That being said, you shouldn’t overlook the public defender’s office. Your case may be better off there. Many public defender offices offer their attorneys many resources that a private attorney could never afford. Public defenders usually have the latest research and investigation firms at their disposal. Many public defender’s offices have a team of spies (social workers, psychologists, investigators and expert witnesses) who research cases together. Public defenders coordinate their activities with each other to better develop and present cases. Many private attorneys do not have these resources.
The ACLU’s report on the counsel of choice issue brings much of this together:
"Millions of Americans facing prosecution without the means to hire a lawyer must rely on the court’s determination of their ability to afford counsel. This determination is often flawed; many individuals are denied counsel simply because they don’t have the money to pay for an attorney. Where the courts do appoint counsel, however, they usually try to make appointments from a list of attorneys willing to accept court appointments for typically low fees. That list does not always include the criminal defense lawyers with the most training and experience. Individuals that have the means to hire a privately retained lawyer are thus able to have better legal representation than individuals who cannot afford a lawyer, even where the court appoints counsel."
Using a Court Appointed Lawyer to Win a Case
When defendants choose to have a court appointed lawyer represent them, there is no guarantee that the outcome of the case will be favorable. However there are strategies that defendants can use to work more effectively with court appointed lawyers in order to achieve successful case results.
In order to improve the chances for a positive case result, defendants must learn to understand and communicate well with their court appointed attorneys. This means ensuring that you understand the legal process being used on your behalf, communicating your concerns and effectively developing an attorney/client rapport.
Defendants can communicate to their lawyers that they are willing to cooperate. This means that they have an understanding of the process in which they are going to be taken through during the trial. In fact, defendants should talk to their lawyers before their trial and ensure that they understand the law, what their responsibility will be, what decisions will be made by the lawyer and themselves, and how evidence will be presented. This communication, both by the lawyer and the defendant will help to manage expectations and ensure that the case preparation goes smoothly.
Defendants should keep the lines of communication open with their court appointed lawyer. They should talk to their lawyer and question the preparation of the case. Any questions or concerns should be addressed with the court appointed lawyer as soon as possible. In order to do this, defendants must meet with their lawyer often enough to be fully informed on the preparation efforts for their case. Defendants should meet with their lawyer months prior to the trial date in order to ensure that everything is being addressed and that they have been given their fair chance at defending themselves.
When defendants are not getting the representation that they deserve, they have the right to ask for a new lawyer. If the lawyer is incompetent or has a conflict of interest, it is always better to ask for a new lawyer than allow an inability to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to affect the outcome of a case.
Defendants are innocent until proven guilty. By discussing any concerns they have with their lawyer, defendants can ensure that they have a good advocate for their case on their side.
Some Examples of Cases Where Court Appointed Lawyers Succeeded
Despite the challenges, many court appointed lawyers have achieved notable victories in high-stakes cases. For example, in Brown v. Mississippi, two African-American men were convicted in 1937 for the murder of a white man. The jury based their verdict on confessions that were obtained through physical violence, including beatings and hangings. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Felix Frankfurter published the unanimous decision, which stated that "a government that has been forced to convict without evidence cannot be called free." The case was convicted as a violation of the defendant’s 14th Amendment right to due process and was overturned . Another example is In re Gault, where a teenager in Arizona was taken to a juvenile court for making a prank phone call regarding someone’s house. Although the threat was not real, the juvenile was declared delinquent and sent to a juvenile prison until he was 21 years old. Similarly to Brown v. Mississippi, this case reached the Supreme Court, where it was determined that the defendant’s 14th Amendment rights had been violated and, thus, his conviction was overturned. In both of these cases, the lawyers for defendant’s were able to draw attention to important elements of the law so that their clients could win their cases, despite a very adverse court environment.