Ethics

    The young lawyer who resigned from the Walton County Public Defender?s office because she was not able to give her client?s the effective assistance of counsel, is unquestionably a hero.  Unfortunately, she is also guilty of serious and sustained unethical conduct, as are her colleagues in the office, the supervisors, and the judges who presided over her cases.

    The lawyer reports that during the 13 months that she served as a public defender, she closed approximately 900 cases.  As she shows mathematically, this created ?appalling? conflicts of interest that prevented her from giving competent, effective representation to the large majority of her clients.  Instead, she gave each case only a ?cursory review? in order to select a ?few? cases to which the office?s ?meager resources would be directed.?  As a result, she and her colleagues repeatedly assisted clients to plead guilty without doing any of the investigation or legal analysis that ethical rules and the Constitution require.

    Moreover, every time a lawyer accompanies a client who pleads guilty, but who has not been competently represented, the lawyer is helping to create a false court record that the client has received the effective assistance of counsel.  This is a violation of the ethical rule that forbids a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

    In addition, the lawyer reports that supervisors are not only aware of these problems, but are directing the lawyers to go forward regardless.  Supervisors also are directing inexperienced lawyers to represent clients without providing those lawyers with essential training to do the job competently.

    Furthermore, the judges who preside over these charades of justice, repeatedly accepting guilty pleas from people who cannot possibly have been afforded their constitutional rights, are acting in violation of judicial ethical requirements.

    Here is what ethical rules clearly require public defenders and other court-appointed lawyers to do when they are subjected to the kinds of overloads that are described in the article:

? Decline to accept representation of any client beyond those that the lawyer can competently represent;

? Report to the appropriate disciplinary body any supervisor who directs a lawyer to take more clients than the lawyer can competently represent;

? Request permission of the court to decline any client beyond the number that the lawyer can competently represent;

? Report to the appropriate judicial disciplinary authority any judge who orders a defender to represent a client that the lawyer cannot competently represent;

? Put on the court record at the time of appointment that the lawyer is not able to give competent, conflict-free representation to the new client;

? Advise the client that the defender does not know enough about the case to advise the client regarding a plea;

? If the client nevertheless elects to plead guilty, put on the court record that the lawyer has not been able to competently represent the client regarding the plea.

    In addition, as was done in Massachusetts, judges should order that any accused who has not been assigned competent, conflict-free representation be freed from jail.

    These problems are not restricted to Georgia.  They are country-wide.  We will get reform of the system only if the things that are listed above are done.  If not, the failure to afford competent representation to indigent criminal defendants will continue to be the most serious and wide-spread problem that we have in lawyers? ethics.