There’s a war erupting in the blawgosphere. My next door neighbor, Houston criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett of Defending People, has made abundantly clear his feelings on the subject of snitching. In fact, he’s put it into his retainer agreement that he’s not going to do it.
Now, Norm Pattis, Connecticut’s answer to Johnny Cochran, goes for blood, arguing that any lawyer who refuses to counsel his client on becoming a rat has failed his duty to his client.
Lawyers who refuse to permit their clients to cooperate with the Government, announcing, sometimes in a retainer agreement, that they will withdraw if the client wants to cooperate, are only doing part of their job.
This is a very touchy subject, obviously. My position tends to be closer to Mark’s. Much closer than Norm’s. While I agree that the lawyer is obliged to inform his client that becoming a rat is an option that may well be the only way to get out from under the onerous burdens of the federal sentencing guidelines, I won’t do it. If he wants to be a snitch, he will have to find some other lawyer more suited to the job. It’s not what I do.
Norm takes issue with my position.
Criminal court is a place of fierce emotions and it draws passionate lawyers. But refusing to work with clients in whose interest it is to cooperate is putting the lawyer’s interest, his passion, his vision of himself, first. That should never be done. Clients need options and lawyers willing to stand by them regardless of what the client chooses.
Standing by your client is a fine sentiment, but so is knowing your limitations. I cannot agree that refusing to represent clients who flip is abandonment, particularly when you are up front about it. They know at the outset where the line is drawn. Defendant’s have a choice when represented by private counsel. Just as the client has the right to discharge us at any time, we too maintain the right to draw lines. This is such a line.
But Norm’s point that cooperation is part of the repertoire of criminal defense is well taken. It may well be the only way for a defendant to save himself from 30 years in prison. Should the defendant die in the slammer because the attorney doesn’t like cooperation? Clearly not. But does that mean that the trial lawyer is obliged to change hats and become the rat lawyer?
Tough question.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Deja vu all over again!
As I’ve said before, I think a lawyer that tells his clients from the outset that he will not represent them if they snitch is doing that client a disservice and is probably not doing his/her job.
Norm’s a clever guy, and he’s obviously unafraid of being wrong. He compares us to doctors; we’re not doctors — doctors don’t often have the option of making someone else sick to save a patient.
Am I confused? Did Gideon agree with my position? And now there is someone else? Oh dear lord. Could I actually be right about something? Anything?
I agree whole-heatedly with the esteemed Mr. Pattis. While I will agree with Mark that if he doesn’t want to represent those that cooperate, that is completely his call. But I do think that a criminal defense lawyer who refuses to represent those who wish to cooperate are only playing a Par-3 course…they only need a few clubs in the bag.
Mark made a comment some time back to a post of mine that it takes zero legal skill to advocate for a cooperating defendant. I disagree. While anyone can walk their client (usually with the help of the friendly people at the U.S. Marshalls office) into court an plead them guilty, it takes work to fashion the best possible resolution to the case.
I’m just happy someone actually agrees with me…on anything.
So many questions, grasshopper. Yes, you are confused (but not because of this). No, gid does not agree with you (you agree with Gid). No, there is not “someone else” (same as with Gid). And yes, you could actually be right about something (even a clock that’s stopped . . . ).
Also, the golf metaphor is much better than the celery one, although I would liken the rat lawyer more to one inclined to kick the ball out of a bad lie.
And in conclusion, there is indeed a certain prowess needed to represent the snitch; a strong stomach and the will to beg for a 5K1.1 letter. As soon as you can snatch the stone from my hand, grasshopper, you will be ready.
Am I the only person in this conversation that actually sees the complexities of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the nuances available for those that know how to effectively manipulate them?
I apologize, I agree with Gideon. Although I think he is echoing a sentiment of mine some time ago. But I can’t remember when.
No one likes celery. Except of course women on diets.
You mean this stone?
Huh?
Singing for a 5K1 is now “effectively manipulating the nuances of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines”?
Please.
Mark:
If you are worrying about harm to others you are in the wrong line of work. Your sole duty is a duty of zealous advocacy to the client. We don’t have a duty to do justice. Harming others is part of the job if it serves the client.
You wouldn’t have a problem helping a client kill someone if it were legal and might help a client get a better deal?
Oops. Scott’s blog doesn’t like links.
http://www.bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/11/ethics-of-snitching-2.html
Sorry YS, but there is nothing nuanced about getting on your knees, ratting out your brother for a 5K1.1 letter. There are no complexities. There is no manipulation. When you’ve committed a crime and rat out someone else so you can get some relief from the guidelines, there’s no trick to it at all.
Let me know when you get a 4 level downward departure on a straight plea and I’ll be impressed. Until then, no stone.
there are other ways to successfully represent someone in a guilty plea than just a 5K1.1.
Of course since Bennett doesn’t represent the full spectrum of clients, what does it matter? I mean I can shoot a 54 on a Par-3 course, but I’m just at even money at that point.
Cooperation is only about a 5K1.1. Plea is a different animal.
You shoot 54 on a par-3?
Mark is in private practice and one of the luxuries of private practice is being able to pick and choose your clients. No one likes a snitch and being that we are all members of the bar, isn’t part of being a “zealous advocate” include counseling our clients as to all of the possible outcomes even beyond the 5K1.1 letter.
I work in a PD’s office and I am not afforded the luxury Mark has but when one of my clients starts talking about wanting to talk to the DA I remind him of the jail house rhymes “Snitches get stitches” and “Snitches end up in ditches.”
And by the way celery is great with bleu cheese dressing and wings?
So are we now limiting ourselves to just Federal practice?
Where I practice, cooperation for benefit in state cases is very rarely an issue.