It wasn’t only the name of Dan Hull’s blog, switching on the weekends to “What About Paris” because why not? It was an approach to the practice of law. Law wasn’t there so we had someplace to go in the morning. It wasn’t there to buy us a car or feed the kids, though we expected to be paid for our services.
So what happened here?
#TBT | These bright new lawyers are ready to fight for constitutional and social justice. #DefendersRepresent pic.twitter.com/7AUfP0owbs
— Defender Association of Philadelphia (@PhillyDefenders) September 26, 2019
No doubt they’re all bright new lawyers. No doubt they’re “ready to fight.” But these are public defenders, and they’re fighting for “constitutional and social justice”?
No. Well, maybe so, but that isn’t the job. The job is to fight for the indigent accused. If the defendant is a skinhead, the job is to fight for him. If the defendant is accused of raping women, the job is to fight for him. If the defendant shot up an abortion clinic, the job is to fight for her.
That’s the job. Was this unclear? Obviously, it was to whoever wrote that the job is to fight for constitutional and social justice. But this isn’t merely some mewling come out of the new crop of woke kids; they believe it.
They “get” that they will be asked to stand next to the guy with a swastika tat on his forehead, accused of beating a black trans person, but they rationalize their role as vindicating Gideon, serving a higher constitutional duty, even if it means standing next to a person they would much rather punch than serve. They will gently ask for his preferred pronouns, because that’s what a fighter for social justice should do.
Will they fight for this dude? Will they argue that his alleged crime isn’t so bad as to deny him bail, to present a threat to others? Will they ask about his job, his family, his community ties, to keep him out so he can hook up with his crew again and maybe, just maybe, look for another mark to beat?
To non-criminal defense lawyers, there is a simple answer to these questions: screw this awful guy, let him rot in jail until he rots in prison, because this is someone who deserves to be there, good and hard. That’s why everyone isn’t cut out to be a criminal defense lawyer, because we defend, without regard to the crime or the defendant. We don’t ponder the merit of defending an awful person for an awful offense. We just do it. That’s our job.
I’ve written about this a hundred times here. And yet, here I am writing about this again, because the new class at the Defender Association of Philadelphia believes they’re fighting not for a person, not for a defendant, but for social justice. Then again, since their adversary in court will come from progressive District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office, there may be more of an alignment between prosecutor and defender than public defender and client.
Wait, did I say “public defender”? Even that’s not accurate these days, as I learned the other day that the time-honored title of public defender, gunslinger for the poor in the trenches, has given way to the new, shinier and more comfortable “public interest lawyer.”
is that what they do, serve the public interest? Well, in a sense, sure, as there is certainly a public interest in providing constitutional rights and zealous representation to the poor. But it’s an attenuated interest, far off in the distance. The job at hand is zealous defense, whether it serves the public interest or not. Is it in the public interest to put a murderer back on the street? Of course not, but if they can pull it off, that’s exactly what they must do.
It’s not that there won’t be times when their social justice beliefs will match their responsibility to a client, but there will be time when it doesn’t. Many times. And when they puff themselves not as warriors for their defendants, but for social justice, for public interest, can anyone believe they will do whatever they can within the bounds of the law to put that violent neo-Nazi kid back on the street? Even if they say they will zealously defend him, will they? Can they?
You can’t believe yourself to be fighting for social justice and then do everything possible for a client whose existence is the antithesis of it. And you can’t expect a defendant to feel confident that his lawyer isn’t a defender, but a public interest lawyer.
The mythology that public defenders represent the downtrodden, the oppressed, the innocent, is repeated constantly by advocates. But while that’s true of some, it’s not true of all. There are bad people out there who do bad things to other people. They’re not oppressed, but oppressors, even if they had sad childhoods and disgusting parents. They are well beyond the place where they need a hug and a chance, but do really bad things to other people. These are not the defendants you represent for the cause, but they are still your clients and your job is still to defend them.
We don’t defend causes. We defend people. And public defenders defend more of them than any other type of criminal defense lawyer. If they want to be public interest lawyers, they should get a job with the ACLU or Lambda Legal. If they want to defend poor people accused of crimes, then they should let go of the hubris, the lie, that they’re doing it for the public interest or social justice. Lawyers exist for clients. Public defenders exist for poor clients.
The job can be ugly and nasty, but somebody has to do it and they’ve taken the duty to zealously defend their clients, whether they’re good and decent people or evil killers. We defend either the same, zealously and without the slightest concern for social justice or the public interest. It’s all about clients. It’s only about clients. That’s the job.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
SHG:
Point well taken. And the focus on clients — no matter what — has never been expressed better than here. But, in fairness to the most recent class of assistant public defenders in Philly, I suspect this “constitutional and social justice” stuff was just sloppy thinking from whatever hack controls the Defender Association’s twitter account. I suspect that the people depicted in the photo know exactly what their role is. There may be exceptions, but II think most of them would make you proud.
When I write about this, it isn’t to question either the abilities or good intentions of new PDs. But I hear from a great many experienced PDs who are scared shitless about the focus of their newer colleagues. They tell me this isn’t just virtue signaling or posturing, but a very real ideological shift in their understanding of what they do. And they fear that while they’re over-filled on passion for some, they can’t bear the awfulness of others.
In other words, good intentions aren’t good enough when the job is to defend the worst individuals as well as the best.
Scott, I get your concerns, but I’m aligned with Jamison here. The Defenders Association of Philadelphia has never had a death penalty client at the trial level sentenced to anything more than life in prison. Given what I know about capital defense, I am sure that the capital defendants represented by the Defenders Association included clients who weren’t poster children for social justice or the public interest. And, yet, I do know those lawyers zealously represented their clients and saved their lives. I have confidence that the Association includes senior defenders who have lived the institutional history and who know that this tweet doesn’t capture the length and breadth of the office’s defense work.
Are the experienced lawyers doing capital defense in Philly in years past the same as the new class here, or are they proud to be PDs and know their singular duty is to the zealous representation of their client?
I didn’t get a doughnut this morning, so my reading ability is a little scrambled. I read “constitutional and social justice,” but all I saw was “constitutional justice.” I wondered what this thing was, so I looked.
It was a jargon-filled ride. I’m not so good with jargon and its mashed phrases, but it seems constitutional justice is a theory that the courts should not be in the business of determining what the law means. Judges mess everything up with their titled vision of constitutionalism and ill-fitting clothes. If they would just get out of the way, achieving something called “social equality” would be easy-peasy.
I got a bagel, and all was clear. These defenders aren’t in it to defend broke defendants; they’re in it to frustrate judges into retirement.
They’re free to hate the state of the law, and the rulings of judges, as much as anybody else, but if they plan to do their jobs, they better figure out how this law thingy works or they’re going to feel wonderfully self-fulfilled challenging the man while their defendants are doing life plus cancer.
Bagels are good, Vice Admiral.
Did you mean ‘defendant’ in the sentence: “… more of an alignment between prosecutor and ‘defender’ than public defender and client.”? Not picking on typo here but it seems to work either way for my untrained mind.
Yes. Yes I did.
When we trained a few fresh baby PDs a few years ago we talked to them about things they shouldn’t concern themselves with from 8:00 to 4:30: careerism, the abstract concept of unfairness, “getting experience,” social justice, being liked, “media training and movement building,” whether your client will go on to kill additional puppies, etc. Nearly every single baby PD was receptive to this, and those who weren’t initially came around quickly. We kinda pounded this into their little baby brains so that when a kitten killer came around they’d know what to do. We did this because that’s what was done to us (for us?) when we started. Hopefully some strong-willed individuals* will break this trend of unfocused media-savvy PDs. I think it’s entirely possible that this is a fad, but I think extremely strong-willed individuals** will succeed.
*Affectionately known as assholes.
**Affectionately known as real assholes.
Nicely done.
Whatever happened to the rule of yours that some clients are just not worth the trouble?
That’s not my rule, but your bad acid trip. As a private lawyer, if a potential client is the wrong fit, you don’t have to take the case. But if you take a case and represent someone, you can do no less than fulfill the duty to zealously defend. If you can’t do so, whether because they lie or refuse to cooperate, then the only option is to withdraw from the case so they can obtain counsel who will provide a zealous defense.
PDs don’t have the option to reject a client they don’t like. That’s the life they chose.
An Ode to Clients
We demand social justice
Resolved to not bend
They’re merely tools
A means to an end
We defend public interest with verve,
Social Justice with courage and nerve.
For honorable mention,
Our noble intention:
Our poor clients get what they deserve!
I am currently interning at the PD’s office in Alexandria, VA, and you are absolutely correct: you must be a defender of your clients however they may come to you. If “fighting for constitutional and social justice” is what they think this job is, then they are going to get burned out really quickly when it becomes apparent to them that some of their clients did “it” and the best you can hope for is a lesser included offense than the one charged. The job is to defend those who didn’t do “it” and make the prosecution dot every “i” and cross every “t” for the cases where they did do “it.”
Well Isn’t your blog some white privileged garbage. As a black defender practicing in a city where I was born in raised its people like you that frustrate me AND OUR CLIENTS, every day. WE are so tired of people like you coming to our towns and Saying you are about the clients when you DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING about the clients or their communities. Social justice is about the people. You are not about the people, you are about YOU and what YOU can do for these poor people you’ve decided to defend. Each and everyone of you needs to take a good look in the mirror And figure out why working for social justice bothers you so much. Because I can assure you, it doesn’t bother our clients.
Get over yourselves. This isn’t about you.
Remarkable: you managed to compose two sentences that sandwich a bunch of non-sentences. What makes you think your message is conveyed and accepted when the thought is made so poorly?
But you have something right: lawyering isn’t about us. It also isn’t about people generically. It’s about the client–you know, the guy caught in the hand-to-hand or the turnstile jumper. The guy sitting next to you in court. It isn’t about you. It isn’t about your “belief system.” It isn’t about how you want things to be. It’s about nothing but that guy sitting next to you. Get it?
Every once in a while, someone conclusively proves the point by their astounding lack of self-awareness. Today, you are that person. May god have mercy on your clients’ souls. And cool use of ALL CAPS, always a great way to impress people with your brilliance.
And if a conflict should arise between what’s best for “the people” and what’s best for your client as an individual, how do you resolve it?
What compels you to ask such a pointless question? If she understood the conflict, she wouldn’t have written such an inane comment.
This is one of those rare places where no one gives a damn about your race or gender, but only what you have to say. You have nothing to say, Lisa. When you’ve been a “black defender” as long as I have, I hope you’ll realize how ridiculous you sound now, and haven’t harmed too many people by your misguided grasp of your responsibilities.
You realize, of course, that the irony will be wasted.
Of course, but I knew you would see it, so it wouldn’t be wasted.