Comments on: News from an experimental forest http://www.theimbroglio.com/10/25/2006/news-from-an-experimental-forest/ The ratio of people to cake is too big. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:16:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ti http://www.theimbroglio.com/10/25/2006/news-from-an-experimental-forest/comment-page-1/#comment-485 ti Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:29:36 +0000 http://www.theimbroglio.com/2006/10/25/news-from-an-experimental-forest/#comment-485 Yeah, just having a PD system is no guarantee that clients will get better representation. There are perverse incentives either way. I look at it this way: I get paid the same regardless of how much I work on a case; this gives me more time to actual focus on my cases and clients b/c I don't have to worry about running a business and paying the bills. I can also be more honest in my practice; I don't have any reason to prolong a case unnecessarily. My only motivation is to give my clients the best represntation I can. Unfortunately, the large caseloads of many PDs force them to triage, meaning that some cases and clients get shorted. On the other hand, a unified PD system can combine the strength of many lawyers to attack systemic issues in a way that contact attorneys can't. I don't know. There's no perfect system. I've got to give this one more time to see whether it's going to turn out like the one you describe in SD, or better.... Yeah, just having a PD system is no guarantee that clients will get better representation. There are perverse incentives either way. I look at it this way: I get paid the same regardless of how much I work on a case; this gives me more time to actual focus on my cases and clients b/c I don’t have to worry about running a business and paying the bills. I can also be more honest in my practice; I don’t have any reason to prolong a case unnecessarily. My only motivation is to give my clients the best represntation I can. Unfortunately, the large caseloads of many PDs force them to triage, meaning that some cases and clients get shorted. On the other hand, a unified PD system can combine the strength of many lawyers to attack systemic issues in a way that contact attorneys can’t.

I don’t know. There’s no perfect system. I’ve got to give this one more time to see whether it’s going to turn out like the one you describe in SD, or better….

]]> By: Will http://www.theimbroglio.com/10/25/2006/news-from-an-experimental-forest/comment-page-1/#comment-478 Will Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:41:25 +0000 http://www.theimbroglio.com/2006/10/25/news-from-an-experimental-forest/#comment-478 A little off topic, but your post got me thinking... I live in SD, where many of the counties don't have public defenders. Instead, the court will appoint lawyers to indigent criminal defendants and the lawyers are compensated at something like $80/hr, paid for by the county, to be reimbursed by the defendant (if the county is lucky). In the larger counties, they DO have PD's who are paid a salary or a contract rate. I live in one of the bigger counties where we have a PD. There have been TWO jury trials in the last year in my county. Two, in over a year. And about 1,000 plea deals. In the surrounding counties, however, the ones without the PD, there are significantly more jury trials, by raw numbers and by percentate of total cases. Obviously, that's because in those counties there is more of an incentive (for the lawyer) to take the case to trial (and get paid by the hour). Contrast that with the PD, who has NO financial incentive to go to trial. In fact, the self-interested PD will just try to crank cases through as quickly as possible, to get them off his or her desk. (Obviously the PD's in my county aren't very scrupulous, but I imagine this is a problem which plagues all PD offices.) This is probably not news to someone who knows how this stuff works. But I'm just finding out, and I think it's awful. The lawyers should do what's best for their CLIENT, not what's best (financially) for themselves. It's reprehensible. Yet this is what happens. I guess I don't know what the point of this comment is, other than to say I hope you keep your enthusiasm for taking cases to trial -- for doing what's BEST for your client, regardless of the financial (dis)incentives -- a few years down the road when you're a salty, grizzled veteran. :) A little off topic, but your post got me thinking…

I live in SD, where many of the counties don’t have public defenders. Instead, the court will appoint lawyers to indigent criminal defendants and the lawyers are compensated at something like $80/hr, paid for by the county, to be reimbursed by the defendant (if the county is lucky).

In the larger counties, they DO have PD’s who are paid a salary or a contract rate.

I live in one of the bigger counties where we have a PD. There have been TWO jury trials in the last year in my county. Two, in over a year. And about 1,000 plea deals.

In the surrounding counties, however, the ones without the PD, there are significantly more jury trials, by raw numbers and by percentate of total cases. Obviously, that’s because in those counties there is more of an incentive (for the lawyer) to take the case to trial (and get paid by the hour). Contrast that with the PD, who has NO financial incentive to go to trial. In fact, the self-interested PD will just try to crank cases through as quickly as possible, to get them off his or her desk.

(Obviously the PD’s in my county aren’t very scrupulous, but I imagine this is a problem which plagues all PD offices.)

This is probably not news to someone who knows how this stuff works. But I’m just finding out, and I think it’s awful. The lawyers should do what’s best for their CLIENT, not what’s best (financially) for themselves. It’s reprehensible.

Yet this is what happens.

I guess I don’t know what the point of this comment is, other than to say I hope you keep your enthusiasm for taking cases to trial — for doing what’s BEST for your client, regardless of the financial (dis)incentives — a few years down the road when you’re a salty, grizzled veteran. :)

]]>