Well, isn’t that wonderful? After all, who better to defend than someone who has spent their entire career putting miscreants away. This is the myth that has been promoted and perpetuated for public consumption for as long as I can remember. The only problem is that it’s a fiction. They wrap these former prosecutors in whole cloth to cover up one indisputable fact. They have zero experience in defense, and their entire understanding of criminal defense is losing.
This is not to say that a former prosecutor can’t make a good defense lawyer. Indeed, many do, and some are exceptionally good. But being a former prosecutor does not give one a leg up, nor prepare a lawyer to do criminal defense. And the perpetuation of the myth is just shocking.
What’s worse is the quote from Chairman of the Biglaw firm:
Ballard Spahr Chairman Arthur Makadon said the firm identified Mann as a “superb trial lawyer,” and asked if she would be interested in joining the group.“Let’s face it, lawyers who know how to try cases are few and far between at this point,” he said.
Artie, somebody needs to tell you this. For every case tried by a prosecutor, there’s at least one defense lawyer on trial as well. For the most part, they’re lawyers too.
I won’t question whether the former prosecutor is a superb trial lawyer. In fact, I’ll give them that one. But then, she has a whole bunch of guys and gals we call “agents” working for her, all of whom have guns and shields. She has the ear of the federal judiciary. She has the bias in favor of law and order that has been beaten into the head of every American man, woman and child over the past 50 years. Even a superb trial lawyer gains a little advantage with these.
The defense lawyer has nothing more than hard work, quick thinking and the will to face a government determined to take her client away. Will she still be as superb when stripped of the accourtrements of an AUSA? That has yet to be seen.
Not only does this former prosecutor get the gig as a criminal defense lawyer, but she comes in as partner. What a great deal, since she can’t bring a single client to the firm (unless she’s been handing out cards while on the government dole) and is nothing more than a worker bee at this stage.
Try as hard as you might, there is no Biglaw firm that I know of that wants to talk to anybody who doesn’t have business to bring in. The first question is always, “What are your portables?” Of course, in criminal defense, we don’t (and can’t) have portables. Clients have to be arrested first. It’s the nature of the biz.
So why doesn’t Biglaw turn to the public defenders or the private criminal bar to find their “superb trial lawyers?” After all, they need someone amongst their thousands of lawyers who can find their way to a courtroom, right?
I can’t say for sure why their heads are rarely turned in our direction, but I have a theory. We don’t dress like them. We don’t know what fork to use at state dinners. Sometimes, we mix our metaphors. Oh, the disgrace. On the other hand, prosecutors wear regimental striped ties and sturdy lace-up shoes. Their hair is always cut short and well-groomed. They blend.
But most importantly, Biglaw doesn’t represent those dirty little criminals that we do. Sure, we handle white collar criminals too, but our hands are dirty from those “others”. And when we clean up and represent a better class of criminal, we do it all wrong. Instead of trotting them over to the U.S Attorney’s office at the first possible opportunity to share a cup of tea and whatever information our client can give up, we actually defend them. We come up with a strategy designed to win. We fight.
How low class of us. Imagine the horror of white collar defense lawyers not sucking up to government prosecutors. It’s downright undignified. Biglaw guys don’t want to be around people like us. They certainly don’t want to be around the people we represent. Can you imagine our clients in the waiting room, sullying up the rich Corinthian leather chairs?
And so the myth continues, because Biglaw (and former prosecutors) needs to justify its choices without regard to how well it serves its clients. The nice thing about believing in fairies is that their feet never get dirty as they flitter about the office. I may not be able to fly, but I sure can defend. And for the record, I look damn good in my school tie.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I really enjoyed reading this. Same thing happens ‘downunder,’ must be something about the criminal classes and those who advocate on their behalf which is univerally reviled by our betters. At least here we are, after about five years of straight prosecutorial preferment the bench, getting several from the defence side being elevated. But biglaw down under won’t even bother looking down its nose at us crim defenders. Until they need a scrapper in court, that is. But even then, job done, it’s like it was all an accident and you never did anything of value. So be it. Give me my honest cons anyday to the suited variety…
lol. Ain’t it the truth.
I’m in a great white collar federal case at the moment, with some of those white-shoe pretenders who are so stiff you would think that they would crack if they smiled.
Government tells clerk she needs a 30 day extension on Speedy Trial, and clerk passes out forms for the attorney and defendants to sign. All the lawyers busily signing the forms, giving away their client’s speedy trial rights. I step up, clerk hands me a form and I turn to the collective mass of lawyers and ask, “Why?” They all look around with this dumb stare, and it dawns on them all at once that not one of them even thought to ask “why” before they starting tripping all over each other to give their client’s rights away!
Not only did they not consider asking why first, but they never considered the possibility of telling the government no. Isn’t it fun to play with the Biglaw boys?
Think about the clients. Biglaw lawyers are not accustomed to representing human beings. They represent things (corporations). When they are looking for more lawyers to join them, it’s natural that they should look for other lawyers representing things (governments).
But there’s a huge difference between representing a thing and representing a human being. Someone who’s good at one is not necessarily good — in fact, is probably not good — at the other.
Excellent point. Thank you.