Arizona has a problem, one that is shared by other states. They have more criminal defendants than they have criminal defense lawyers. As Gideon made it incumbent on states to provide counsel for the indigent accused, the need for someone to stand beside a criminal defendant is clear, even if disregarded by some locales when it proves inconvenient. But what can be done when there just aren’t enough lawyers to fill the gap? Arizona’s Dave Byers, director of the administrative office of the courts, has come up with a solution.

A proposal being advanced by the top administrator of the Arizona Supreme Court would take what now are programs offered at the state’s two law schools to simply provide advanced legal knowledge to graduate students and enhance and convert them to a one-year course that, in the end, would lead to the ability to actually take on clients.

It wouldn’t be quite that simple, said Dave Byers, director of the administrative office of the courts.

Students would need to take a prescribed list of courses specifically related to criminal law, graduate with a B or better average and pass appropriate license exams. They would be granted a degree in Master of Legal Studies.

Master of Legal Studies sounds like pretty impressive degree. But a one-year course does not a lawyer make. And yet, that “master” would be authorized to represent defendants on crimes from petty up to homicide.

And they would first have to work under the supervision of an actual licensed attorney for some period — the proposal now suggests nine months — before they could practice on their own.

A year of school and nine months of supervised practice is not quite sufficient when someone’s life is on the line, much as it’s better than no schooling and no supervision. But what’s Arozina to do?

Byers told Capitol Media Services that, despite what appears to be a glut of lawyers based on billboards and TV commercials for those injured in accidents and accused of drunk driving, the fact is that Arizona is a “legal desert,’’ with the state having fewer lawyers per capita than almost anywhere else in the country.

The state could, of course, pay their public defenders well enough to be a draw to lawyers to practice in Arizona. After all, those lawyers with billboards and TV commercials are there because that’s where the money is. If they aren’t representing the poor, maybe it’s due to a lack of money to adequately compensate lawyers, leaving the state a “legal desert”?

What this training is geared to he said, is training people who can work in understaffed offices of county attorneys and public defenders, particularly in rural areas, where those who have an actual law degree — a juris doctor — are less likely to practice, whether it has to do with the pay, or simply wanting to live somewhere more urban.

Byers acknowledged, though, that once that period of supervision is over, the holders of the special MLS designation would be free to take on clients in criminal cases anywhere they want. And they’d be able to handle everything short of a crime where the death penalty could be imposed.

The issue of “access to justice” has long been one of concern. On the one hand, private lawyers are expensive and people either can’t, or won’t, pay to defend themselves. On the other hand, if the state wants to prosecute people, it’s the state’s constitutional responsibility to provide defendants with competent counsel if they can’t afford one. But the key word there is “competent,” not merely a warm body to create the appearance of a defense without the substantive of effective assistance of counsel.

It’s understandable why the obvious solution to the problem, higher pay for public defenders, tends to be disfavored by states. After all, it costs money and taxpayers tend not to feel particularly good about ponying up more tax dollars so criminals can have lawyers to beat the charges. That someone arrested may not be a criminal doesn’t do much to alter the equation.

But manufacturing a non-existent degree to hand over to a sub-lawyerish defender is that Menckian answer, clear, simple and wrong.

“Creating a system where any criminal practitioner, be it a prosecutor or public defender, can graduate from undergrad and be practicing in two semesters is reducing that bar, and is literally lowering the bar to say that when a person’s life or liberty is at stake, up to and including the rest of their lives, that suddenly we only require one year worth of schooling,’’ [Dean Brault, director of public defense services for Pima County] said. “That is absurd.’’

There are already too many lawyers practicing criminal defense after having graduated from an accredited law school and passing the bar exam who either lack the ability to zealously defend their client or are too ideologically conflicted to appreciate that their duty is to their client, not morality or social justice.

Arizona needs criminal defense lawyers, and in a better world, they could be competent to fulfill that task. What it doesn’t need, and what no defendant needs, is some half-baked “master” to create the appearance of a defense with neither the education, skills nor experience to provide a zealous and effective defense.

H/T Hunting Guy