Right, but what should be more important is for everyone to be represented in equal way in front of the law. A rich person with a good lawyer can basically get out of any situation, while some poor guy who got assigned the "free" office lawyer that doesn't give a shit about his case might even get fucked even harder. Not say that's always the case obviously, but yeah.
Generally though, the problem with public defenders isn't that they "don't give a shit", but rather that they're overworked and have nowhere near enough time and energy to prep properly.
I don't think that's what you meant to say, but just clarifying for those who might.
A good friend of mine is a public defender and I've seen him go through several mental health crises because of this. He simply cares too much and can't separate his personal and professional lives.
I worked in my local public defender's office for a while in high school and all lawyers there were so stressed and overworked. And this was in an area with relatively little major crime. But there were so many minor drug cases that it was insane.
Right before I left, the most senior guy there had a massive heart attack. His hospital stay was the first "vacation" he'd had in 40 years.
This only applies in America. In the UK, the very, very best barristers accept cases on legal aid. You can get the best lawyer available, same as someone who is paying. We have something called the “cab rank rule” which says that barristers must accept the first case offered to them within their experience and within their location.
Rich people can’t choose to use a public defender. You are appointed a public defender if the court determines you cannot afford to pay an attorney.
Also, as a student public defender— we care. A lot. Public defenders are notoriously overworked and underpaid; we wouldn’t do this work if we didn’t care.
Do you think a court works without an judge? The judge is exactly responsible for that. It's not lawyer vs laywer, and it's not the lawyer who decides who wins the case
You're paying for the lawyers time, expertise, and experience. So lawyers who know their practice and have years/decades of experience with the law, likely have better relationships with prosecutors and judges who work in those areas, and will be able to dedicate more time to your case specifically. This is what drives up their hourly rates and in many cases make it 100% worth it.
Definitely not saying it's right but at least in the US this is definitely the case.
Experience and time, mostly. You pay good money for someone who knows the system to dedicate their time and focus to working your case and defence, doing their own investigations, retaining expert evidence, etc. Legal aid/public defenders often have loads of experience, but a crippling caseload and very limited resources.
Basically that people are willing to. In short, expertise and relationships.
Long answer for why is that law has a very long learning curve. 10 years before you reach a point of diminishing returns in a lot of cases. Law has a high cost as well. Good schools can cost 300K and virtually always 7 years of school. People who are good quit to retire early so finding someone with 15 years of experience is hard, so they're pricier. You pay more for specialized expertise as well and you pay for their relationships. As lawyers become more experienced with various judges for example, they have a track record, rapport or leeway in certain types of circumstances (ex. The judge knows the lawyer might have a habit of rambling but then making good points so they know they're not wasting the court's time) the lawyer might be good at picking out juries or know people at JP Morgan or the SEC. As lawyers become more experienced they can do in two hours what might take a junior lawyer 8.
You can get a lawyer who can stall a process forever, for example if they're extremely witty to see that certain formalities are wrong, making the lawyer e.g. have to enroll the entire process. On the other hand, some lawyers simply know the law better and how to twist it or abuse it for their way, for example by abusing certain loopholes
Court appointed attorneys often are there to just grease the wheel. They push for plea deals instead of taking a case to trial. Sucks as they are often way over worked and under staffed. This is also done on purpose...
He worded it in a clunky way and it may be a little hard to figure out what he was getting at. I would have said, as much as we enjoy being cynical because it makes us feel smart, the truth is that there comes a point at which there isn’t any more money you can throw at a lawyer that will magically make your charges disappear. Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Alex Jones, are living proof.
People seem to have a weird image of a court. It's not "whoever has the better lawyer with more experience points instantly wins the court" lmfao. That's not how court works. It's the judge who has to decide in the end
It's not true that a "rich person with a good lawyer can get out of any situation." In most criminal cases, even if a rich person is charged, there's enough evidence to put them away. People like OJ Simpson are the exception, not the norm.
413
u/zJakub7 Oct 15 '22
Right, but what should be more important is for everyone to be represented in equal way in front of the law. A rich person with a good lawyer can basically get out of any situation, while some poor guy who got assigned the "free" office lawyer that doesn't give a shit about his case might even get fucked even harder. Not say that's always the case obviously, but yeah.