Flirting Longer and Harder

I first met my client a few days ago.  He is kind of homeless-looking and had a long rap sheet full of long prison bids.  He had just been arrested and he was very angry.  He didn't want to talk, he wanted to shout at me.  Among the things he shouted at me was, "I DON'T TRUST COPS, I DON'T TRUST JUDGES, AND I DON'T TRUST LAWYERS!"  It seemed we had a lot in common, if only he'd stop shouting.  He banged on the walls, he banged on the desk, and I waited patiently through quite a bit of shouting when finally he cut the interview short, walking out of the booth and insisting the guards come and take him out.  That was ok with me, I needed to meet with other clients and this meeting was not productive.  I figured I'd see him in a few days (there was no chance of him getting out) and maybe at that time he'd be a little calmer and able to communicate.
I saw my client again today.  The first thing he said to me, to his credit, was "Were you the same lawyer I met a few days ago?  I really owe you an apology.  I was so angry, I just really needed to calm down.  I'm really sorry I was so disrespectful.  Can you accept my apology?"  I told him I accepted his apology,  and I was happy to start off with a clean slate and talk about his case.  As I was talking about his case, though, he had other things on his mind.  "You've got a nice smile.  I can't believe I yelled at a nice lady with a beautiful smile like that.  Are you married?  I could take you to dinner sometime.  When I get out."  I was able to redirect him and we talked a little about his case and the plea offer the prosecutor was extending.

"I'll take that plea," he told me, "but see if you can get it down a little lower.  A little lower would be better."  I told him that I'd talk to the prosecutor and see if we could get the offer a little lower.  Satisfied, my client went back to asking me if he could take me to dinner.  

After a few minutes, I told the client that I would step out to talk to the prosecutor to try to get the sentence he was looking for, and I'd come back to let him know how it went.  

The prosecutor was willing to go along with our counteroffer, after just a little persuasion.  I went back into the jail pens to give my client the good news.  He was happy, and even more eager to take me to dinner.

"Listen," he said, "I was serious about taking you to dinner when I get out.  I really am.  I know that will be a long time from now, but you never know where life will lead you. You know, we don't always find love where we're looking for it.  Sometimes it's right in front of our eyes and we don't even see it."  

I tried again to redirect his attention to the case, "Alright, we're going to go see the judge soon, and you can take the deal today if you want to get this over with. Or we can get an adjournment, if you want more time to think about it." 

"No, no, I want to get this finished today."  Then, finally, my client made his last ditch attempt.  "I didn't get a chance to tell you what I do for a living.  I know, it's my fault, because I was yelling at you.  But I want to tell you.  I make pornos.  That's what I was actually doing in the city when I got arrested.  I make pornos.  I was here to make pornos.  You might not recognize me, but some people recognize me.  Can I take you out to dinner when I get out?" 

Oh, well now that you put it that way... why didn't you mention that sooner?

Assisting by Being "Ineffective"

This week, the blawg world was abuzz about incompetent and ineffective criminal defense attorneys.

I'm not excusing the practices of attorneys [accused of being ineffective], but all of this talk of ineffective assistance of counsel has me wondering - Is it always a bad thing to be called "ineffective," if it potentially helps your client?  Or, to put it another way, is it ever a good thing to be ineffective, or at least called "ineffective," for your client's sake?

For example, not that long ago, the appellate court overturned a case that an an acquaintance of mine had tried.  I think my acquaintance is a good lawyer, and the decision didn't specifically name him or call him out.  However, the court overturned the conviction, finding the attorney ineffective for failure to investigate the defendant's alibi.  In fact, the decision was kind of confusing, I think that even if this defendant's "alibi" had been proven, it would not have been impossible for the defendant to commit this crime, just less likely (if you believe that you're less likely to commit a crime when you're coming from somewhere legitimate, like work).  I may not have investigated that alibi - it doesn't prove the defendant didn't commit the crime, so I'm not sure that it would have been helpful.

Should the trial lawyer have been embarrassed that his case was overturned?  After all, the defendant will get a new trial, and there's always a chance that if witnesses or evidence have disappeared, he may get a better plea offer or his case may not be retried at all.  If it helps your client, and doesn't provide much more than embarrassment to you (my acquaintance won't lose his job, so the only other consequences I can imagine are bad publicity and maybe an increase in malpractice rates), is that worth it?

Moreover, what if my acquaintance did, in fact, investigate the alibi?  What if the attorney did speak to one witness who said "We can't be sure that your client was at work that day - he missed a lot of days, and we don't keep those kind of records."  How would the appeal lawyer know that?  And, hence, how would the appellate court know?

I know that sometimes trial attorneys are called by appellate attorneys and are asked if they made certain decisions strategically or if they advised their client of certain things.  But if you don't know, you don't remember, or you didn't make any note of it, and it can help your client, is that a bad thing?

If I was called now about a case I handled a few years ago (pre-Padilla), and asked "Did you advise this client of the immigration consequences of this plea?" I would probably go through the file to refresh my recollection.  There are some cases where I would have to answer in the affirmative, if I had made specific notes to my file.  But there would be some, or many, files that would be silent as to the issue.  If I honestly don't remember, and it could save my client from deportation, is it a bad thing if the appellate court calls me ineffective for not advising my client or not making adequate notes?

I also don't know (and maybe a lawyer who handles appeals can tell me) whether raising this kind of issue on appeal invalidates the attorney-client privilege.  I believe that if a client sues you, you have the right to violate privilege to tell the court exactly what you and the client did or did not discuss with the client.  I haven't had either of these situations (knock on wood) so I haven't reviewed the ethical rules for these circumstances since law school.  So, what if the reason why you didn't investigate the client's alibi is because the client told you "Don't bother digging up that video, it will only show me committing the crime and I wouldn't want the prosecutor to find out about it."  Then, years later, he says on appeal, "If only my trial lawyer had gotten that video, that has now been destroyed, it would have shown that I didn't do it."  What is your role as the trial attorney?  Do you expose your conversation with the client, showing him to be a liar?  Or do you let your client get a new trial even if you'll take a beating from the appellate court, and possibly in the press and the blogosphere?