Evidence-Based Practice in Criminal Defense

This interesting paper was recently posted on SSRN:

Jennifer E. Laurin, Gideon by the Numbers: The Emergence of Evidence-Based Practice in Indigent Defense,  Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Forthcoming 2015

Abstract: A widespread consensus understands Gideon’s promise to be largely, sadly, unfulfilled. Yet in truth, we possess precious little hard evidence about the state of indigent defense nationally or the actual impact of indigent defense policies on the quality of representation received. A burgeoning but little-noted trend in the field could alter that state of affairs: the push toward adoption of evidence-based practice. Put most simply, evidence-based practice is a paradigm that aims to tether decision-making to empirical, rather than intuitive or experiential, evaluations of practice or policy options. Originating in medicine and already taking hold in isolated sectors of criminal justice policy, evidence-based practice is sprouting in the indigent defense field, spurred on by legislative reform, shifts in federal funding priorities, and the concerted energy of thought leaders in a number of states. The Essay shines a light on this trend through close examination of three states — North Carolina, Texas, and New York — in which indigent defense oversight commissions have placed the development of evidence-based practice at the front and center of their missions. Critically assessing the prospects for evidence-based indigent defense policymaking, the Essay shares in some of the enthusiasm evinced by evidence-based practice’s promoters, but also enumerates significant barriers to a full flowering of the paradigm, and cautions that an expanded evidence base might, ironically, pose barriers to furthering Gideon’s promise of equal access to counsel for the indigent. 

Right to Counsel at Bail Hearing?

The Constitution Project's National Right to Counsel Committee has produced a new report, Don't I Need a Lawyer? Pretrial Justice and the Right to Counsel at First Judicial Bail Hearing (March 2015).

This report begins with a discussion on the current state of the law concerning access to counsel for criminal defendants, reminding us that because the law presumes everyone innocent unless proven guilty, the law favors pretrial release. It describes the far-reaching and well-documented adverse effects of denying counsel at the earliest stages of a criminal prosecution, a situation that presents numerous constitutional concerns. Without a lawyer at these preliminary stages to marshal resources and advocate on the accused’s behalf, judges are more likely to order a financial condition on release before trial, which results in low income and poor defendants – who are disproportionately people of color – remaining incarcerated, and for longer periods of time. In addition, without the advice of a lawyer, an unrepresented defendant who is unaware of and untrained in the law may speak or remain silent at a bail hearing to his or her later detriment. Defendants incarcerated from the point of arrest also experience substantial prejudice in their ability to conduct an immediate investigation, prepare for trial and build a defense. Collateral consequences also flow from unnecessary pretrial incarceration: the accused may lose a job, his or her home, and the ability to support loved ones. A lawyer’s effective advocacy is a vital safeguard against bail-setting practices that often are excessive for economically disadvantaged people.

The impact is felt not only by the individual, but by society as a whole. State and local governments needlessly add to the taxpayer’s burden by, prior to trial, incarcerating many individuals who pose no public safety risk, but who were simply unable to effectively advocate for themselves. In short, there is no question that early assignment of counsel not only has a significant and positive impact on individual cases, but also promotes better societal outcomes. Thus, when a poor person about to go before the court for the first hearing after arrest asks, “Don’t I need a lawyer?” the unequivocal answer is “Yes.” 

Although early access to counsel has taken hold in some jurisdictions, too many indigent defendants across the country face the daunting specter of representing themselves when courts fail to appoint counsel and then determine whether an accused will remain free or incarcerated in the days, weeks, or months before trial. Accordingly, this report recognizes that a concerted effort from all branches of government is needed to make the early availability of counsel a reality. The report is intended to inform and guide judges, defenders and prosecutors as they carry out their duties to safeguard the rights found in our Constitution. It is also meant to assist policymakers in developing solutions to the problem of absent counsel in first judicial appearances, and sets out six pragmatic recommendations for the local, state and federal governments to bring the promise of effective counsel at the first judicial bail hearing to fruition.

p. 1.

Quality of briefs matters!

A fascinating study of briefs opposing summary judgment in a particular class of employment discrimination cases—a topic with conflicting cases within the circuit—found that a majority omitted available case law that would have countered the defendants' arguments. And it makes a difference: "while bad brief-writers lose summary judgment at a remarkably high rate (86%), good brief-writers do not (42%)."  Scott A. Moss, Bad Briefs, Bad Law, Bad Markets: Documenting the Poor Quality of Plaintiffs’ Briefs, Its Impact on the Law, and the Market Failure It Reflects, 63 Emory L.J. 59, 65 (2013).

Here's the author's abstract:

For a major field, employment discrimination suffers surprisingly low-quality plaintiffs’ lawyering. This Article details a study of several hundred summary judgment briefs, finding as follows: (1) the vast majority of plaintiffs’ briefs omit available caselaw rebutting key defense arguments, many falling far below basic professional standards with incoherent writing or no meaningful research; (2) low-quality briefs lose at over double the rate of good briefs; and (3) bad briefs skew caselaw evolution, because even controlling for win-loss rate, bad plaintiffs’ briefs far more often yield decisions crediting debatable defenses.

These findings are puzzling. In a major legal service market, how can clients persistently choose bad lawyers, lawyers persistently perform so poorly, and judicial and ethics authorities tolerate this situation? Answers include poor client information, ethics authorities’ limited ability or will to discipline bad lawyers, and two troubling lawyer behaviors: (1) overoptimistically entering the field without realizing, until suffering losses, that it requires intensive research and writing; and (2) knowingly litigating on the cheap, rather than expending briefing effort to maximize case value, because contingency-paid lawyers may profitably run “mills” and live off quick, small settlements. A survey of the worst brief-writers’ law firms hints that the problem may be a mix of the former (nonspecialists in over their heads) and the latter (knowingly litigating cheaply).

This Article offers the following reforms that, while no cure-all for a problem stemming from stubborn market forces, could help: (1) expanding educational efforts, including law school experiential learning, bar resource-sharing, and bar exam reform; (2) enhancing client access to information on lawyers by liberalizing ethics rules restricting expertise claims and public access to court files; (3) broadening the supply of competent lawyers by liberalizing rules restricting the standing to sue of discrimination “testers” and ethics rules on corporations owning law firms; and (4) toughening ethics enforcement against the worst offenders, who almost all go unpunished now.

There's lots to think about here, from many perspectives: employment discrimination law, civil procedure, access to justice, legal ethics, and (of course) legal research and writing.

Innocence Movement: Free Online Course / Video Series

The University of Illinois Springfield offers a free online course on the Innocence Movement beginning today, Feb. 2, 2015. You can register online at: http://uis.coursesites.com (Click on this link, then click the name of the course, The Innocence Movement, in the box on the right, then self enroll.) You can enroll in the course at any time. It will remain open and accessible indefinitely. The instructor is Prof. Gwen Johnson, from the Legal Studies Department.

This Innocence MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) is a series of videos that feature exonerees, lawyers, students, and advocates from across the country describing their experiences in the Innocence Movement. It includes the stories of Kirk Bloodsworth, Brian Banks, Juan Rivera, Audrey Edmonds, Vanessa Potkin, Justin Brooks, Laura Caldwell, Senator Dick Durbin, Dr. John Plunkett, Scott Turow, and Eric Zorn, among many others.

Capital Punishment: Race, Poverty, & Disadvantage—Free Online Course

Stephen Bright is president and senior counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, a public interest law program that deals with human rights in the criminal justice and prison systems. He has also been a visiting lecturer or fellow at Yale Law School for over 20 years. Now Yale has posted Bright's  online course, “Capital Punishment: Race, Poverty, & Disadvantage,” on iTunes U and YouTube.

This course examines issues of poverty and race in the criminal justice system, particularly with regard to the imposition of the death penalty. Topics include the right to counsel for people who cannot afford lawyers, racial discrimination, prosecutorial discretion, judicial independence, and mental health issues. 

There are 40 videos, ranging from 18 to 45 minutes. I haven't figured it out, but that's a lot of instruction from one of the nation's leading authorities on the death penalty. Each video has related readings (from the YouTube description, you just click on a link to Dropbox).

If you're interested in criminal justice, this is a great resource.

UW Law Forum on #Ferguson

This afternoon attorney Jeffery Robinson led a discussion on the events in Ferguson, MO—the killing of Michael Brown last summer, the grand jury this fall, and the protests in Ferguson and around the country—and the larger issues of racism, criminal justice, and law enforcement. Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud and former U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan were present and contributed to the discussion.

With a nod to Yogi Berra, Robinson titled his presentation "'You Can Observe a Lot Just by Watching': The Killing of Michael Brown and the Transparent Grand Jury Investigation."

This blog post lists some resources.

Washington State Minority and Justice Commission report mentioned by Justice Gordon McCloud: Mark Peffley et al., Justice in Washington State Survey  (2012, revised & updated 2014)

Project Implicit (Harvard website that Robinson mentioned that offers simple tests that reveal implicit bias).

•   The developers of the Implicit Assocation Test (IAT) are two social psychologists, Mahzarin R. Banaji (now at Harvard) and Anthony G. Greenwald (UW). They have written a very accessible and fascinating book reviewing the research: Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People (2013). Catalog record.
• Jerry Kang, a law professor at UCLA has done a lot of work bringing these studies into law. See his page, Getting up to speed on implicit bias. Kang has a Ted Talk on the topic, too:
  
  
  

Robinson showed a powerful spoken word video by Javon Johnson. View it here.

Robinson also had a powerful infographic with data on police stops from Racism Still Exists (which also has several other infographics).

The Cato Institute's National Police Misconduct Reporting Project is here.


1L Martina Kartman spoke about her experience going to Ferguson with a team from a Freedom School here in Seattle, the Tyree Scott Leadership Institute.

 You can find more resources in our guide, Race in the Criminal Justice System.

Perceptions of Justice—Olympia, June 9

The Washington State Minority and Justice Commission presents a half-day program, Perceptions of Justice, reviewing a report on Washingtonians' perceptions of how they are treated by the police and the courts.

June 9, 2014, 8:45 a.m.-noon
OB2 Auditorium DSHS, 115 Washington Street SE, Olympia
Registration is free and lunch is provided.
Email cynthia.delostrinos[at]courts.wa.gov with "Perceptions of Justice" in the subject line.
3 CLE credits

Speakers are:

• Don Stemen, from Measures for Justice, a national organization working on ways to measure how well or poorly justice systems are performing basic legal services and then advocating to use the data to improve systems. Stemen is also on the faculty of the Dept. of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Loyola Chicago. His profile includes a list of recent publications.


• Mark Peffley, Jon Hurwitz, and Jeffery Mondak, researchers for Justice in Washington report, which was commissioned by the Minority and Justice Commission.


• An advance copy of the report is available on the Washington Defender Association's website: Part 1 (General Descriptive Report on the "Justice in Washington State Survey, 2012") (Oct. 1, 2012), Part 2 (Justice in Washington State Survey, 2012: Analysis of Results, 2nd Report) (rev. March 24, 2014)



• Peffley & Hurwitz wrote Justice in America: The Separate Realities of Blacks and Whites (2010) (UW Libraries catalog record) (publisher's page)


• Jon Hurwitz & Mark Peffley, Explaining the Great Racial Divide: Perceptions of Fairness in the U.S. Criminal Justice System, 67 J. Politics 762-83 (2005)

Juvenile Justice Resources

The Models for Change initiative "supports a network of government and court officials, legal advocates, educators, community leaders, and families working together to ensure that kids who make mistakes are held accountable and treated fairly throughout the juvenile justice process." Models for Change is supported by the MacArthur Foundation.

Models for Change selected four strategic states "for their leadership and commitment to change, geographic diversity, differing needs and opportunities, and likelihood to influence reforms in other locations." The states are Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Within our state, five projects are underway in six counties (Benton and Franklin, Clark, King, Pierce, and Spokane). Our state's projects are coordinated by the Center for Children & Youth Justice.

Twelve more states are involved in the Models for Change initiative through the Action Networks. (The four core states participate in all Action Networks.)

• Maryland, Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina (Disproportionate Minority Contact Action Network)
• California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey (Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network)
• Connecticut, Colorado, Ohio, Texas (Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Action Network)

So there's a lot going on in a lot of places. One more component is sharing information.

The Natural Resource Bank is a group of "16 leading national juvenile justice research, reform, and advocacy organizations that provide expert advice, training, and technical assistance to the core states and action network sites."

Recently Models for Change launched a Resource Center Partnership, in which four different groups  focus on four areas to "provide administrators, practitioners and policymakers with technical assistance, trainings, and proven tools and resources."

• Mental Health & Juvenile Justice Collaborative for Change (mental health issues)
• National Juvenile Defender Center (public defense for indigent youth)
• Status Offense Reform Center (status offenses include truancy and running away)
• Robert F. Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice (dual status youth are involved in both the foster care system and the juvenile justice system)

If you're interested in juvenile justice issues, wander through these websites: you'll find a wealth of reports describing problems and describing and evaluating projects that seek to alleviate them.

Calling Home Is Expensive

Most prisons charge inmates such high rates that "a phone call from an inmate across town may be ten times more expensive than ringing a friend in Singapore," says the Legal Times blog. Now the FCC might do something about it. The agency is holding a day-long workshop today.  FCC Tackles Cost of Prison Phone Calls, The BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times, July 10, 2013.

It's a big issue for the quality of life of inmates and their families. It also affects access to counsel (defense counsel get hit with big bills accepting calls from clients). And it affects state budgets: a Virginia legislator who wants to reform prison phone rates acknowledges that the state general fund would miss the millions of dollars it has been making from the high rates. "What do we replace the lost revenue with? That's our problem."

Experiences of the Self-Represented

It's tough enough to handle litigation when you're a lawyer, but it's incredibly stressful and daunting when you don't.

CBC's Day Six has a 15-minute story on self-represented litigants (May 18, 2013). It begins with a moving interview of middle-class Vancouver woman who ran out of money for her lawyer about five months and $50,000 into her case. She's well-spoken and well-educated (master's degree) and was still overwhelmed.

Next the host interviews Julie Macfarlane, a law professor who conducted a study of unrepresented litigants in three provinces (BC, Alberta, Ontario). The report: Julie Macfarlane, The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants: Final Report (May 2013).

I have just scrolled through the report quickly, but it looks very interesting. Canadians and the Canadian court system are similar enough to US folks and the US legal system that the report is very relevant to our access-to-justice issues.

 Julie Macfarlane teaches law at the University of Windsor. Her faculty bio is here .

Need for Civil Legal Aid

Civil legal aid has suffered in the recession: more people need help, and funding is down. (One source of funding is IOLTA -- interest on lawyers' trust accounts. When interest rates are down, IOLTA is down too.) WSBA's support for different programs may be affected by the recent vote to cut dues. This article puts a human face on the problem: Chris Stein, Going It Alone: In civil court, fewer people are getting lawyers to help them navigate the system, Pacific Northwest Inlander, April 11, 2012.

 

Public Defender Benefits (King County), Staffing (Skagit County)

Two public defender news items:

A recent class action lawsuit resulted in a ruling that King County public defenders, although termed contractors, are basically employees and should be covered by the state's pension plan. Dolan v. King County, 172 Wn.2d 299, legalwa.org link (2011). See State Supreme Court Rules Public Defenders Deserve Pensions; Seattle Times Editorial Board Embarrasses Itself, Seattle Weekly, Aug. 23, 2011. Now a bill (EHB 2771) seeks to limit the reach of the ruling. Kevin Dolan Lawsuit Over State Benefits for Public Defenders Sparks Controversial Bill, Seattle Weekly, Feb. 21, 2012.

The ACLU of Washington represents three defendants in Skagit County who claim that the public defense provided there is inadequate. The ACLU reports Court Hears Lawsuit over Public Defense System that Fails to Represent Poor People, Feb. 14, 2012. See also Public Defense Almost Non-Existent in Burlington, Mount Vernon, Claims Lawsuit, Seattle Weekly, Feb. 16, 2012.  The case is Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon, No. C11-01100 (W.D. Wash.). The ACLU has posted two of the plaintiffs' motions.

Frustrations in Family Court

This week's cover story in the Seattle Weekly is Ripped Apart: Divorced dads, domestic violence, and the systemic bias against men in King County family court (Jan. 18, 2012). Nina Shapiro reports on courts that are so busy that each side in a divorce often has just minutes to present evidence and arguments. (Very few cases go to trial, so the hearings before commissioners are critical.) She profiles three men whose divorces were complicated by allegations of domestic violence and painful custody disputes. Several attorneys quoted say that the system is biased against men. 

It would be interesting to hear more voices related to this story – divorced and divorcing women, more men than the three profiled, commissioners, judges. Would the conclusions be any different?

Hot Coffee -- Documentary about Tort Reform

A new documentary explores the rhetoric and politics of "tort reform." Hot Coffee: Is Justice Being Served? begins with the the case that has been fodder for comedians and politicians, Liebeck v. McDonald's.

Seinfeld mocked it. Letterman ranked it in his top ten list. And more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. Everyone knows the McDonald’s coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Hot Coffee reveals what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s, while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end. After seeing this film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee.

The next segment of the film looks at how a tort-reform damage cap has affected one family with a seriously disabled son.

And the third segment features Oliver Diaz, a justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court who successfully campaigned against a candidate backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only to be indicted for accepting a bribe and then for tax fraud. Despite his acquittals, the charges kept him off the bench for years and probably cost him his next election.

The filmmaker, Susan Saladoff, is a lawyer who took on this project – her first film – during a sabbatical from her practice. She definitely has a point of view, and in the film and on the website encourages people to take action opposing tort reform. Whether or not you ultimately share her position, the film offers important information, with clips from advocates on both sides of the debate. Check it out: KF1250.H68 2011 at Classified Stacks.

Skagit County suit claims public defenders too busy to defend

A class action suit against the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington claims that the attorney with the contract to handle public defense of misdemeanor cases has such a high caseload that it violates defendants' right to counsel. Skagit County suit claims public defenders too busy to defend | Seattle Times Newspaper, June 20, 2011.

Churches Against ‘Jim Crow’

For many black congregations, this weekend’s celebration of Juneteenth will feature a special emphasis on exposing the racial biases of our nation’s criminal justice system.

Since attorney Michelle Alexander wrote The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, a network of churches has joined her in the fight against a criminal justice system that targets poor minority communities and locks up a disproportionate percentage of African American men.

The Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, a group of thousands of black churches involved in local and global social justice issues, is coming together for Juneteenth to galvanize faith-based action against the new Jim Crow that Alexander writes about in her book.

Catherine Newhouse, Churches Against ‘Jim Crow’ | Urban Faith, June 17, 2011.

See earlier posts on The New Jim Crow. See also the Gallagher Law Library (UW Law) guide, Race in the Criminal Justice System and the website for the state Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System.

Juneteenth is a celebration of African American freedom and accomplishment. The Washington State legislature declared:

The legislature recognizes that on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the Civil War had ended and the slaves were now free; that this was two and a half years after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; that the end of slavery brought on new challenges and realities in establishing a previously nonexistent status for African-Americans in the United States; that racism and continued inequality is the legacy of slavery and acknowledging it is the first step in its eradication; and that since 1980 June 19th has been celebrated as Juneteenth across the United States as a day for people to come together in the spirit of reconciliation to commemorate the contributions of African-Americans to this country's history and culture.

The legislature declares that an annual day of recognition be observed in remembrance of the day the slaves realized they were free as a reminder that individual rights and freedoms must never be denied.

The legislature declares that an annual day of recognition be observed in remembrance of the day the slaves realized they were free as a reminder that individual rights and freedoms must never be denied.

Laws of 2007 ch. 61 § 1, codified at RCW 1.16.050.

Race and the Criminal Justice System

People of color are over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system, from arrest through sentencing and incarceration.

Paula Ditton Henzel, Disproportionality and Disparity in Adult Felony Sentencing 2003 (Wash. State Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, [2003]).

What are the causes, effects, and possible cures for this serious disproportionality?

A state-wide Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System has been meeting for the last few months and will meet with the Washington Supreme Court March 2.

The Law Library has prepared a guide, linking to Washington State studies and other materials. See Race in the Criminal Justice System.

Next Thursday, the UW Minority Law Students Association presents a panel, Racial Disparity & The Criminal Justice System, 3:30-5:

Welcome by Dean Kellye Testy
Panelists:
• The Honorable Veronica Alicea-Galvan, Des Moines, Washington Municipal Court
• Professor Katherine Beckett, UW Department of Sociology and UW Law, Societies & Justice Program
• Officer Jeff Geoghagan, Seattle PD SWAT
• Professor Alexes Harris, UW Department of Sociology
• Anita Khandelwal, The Defender Association
• Mark Larson, Chief Criminal Deputy of the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office

Moderated by Professor Mary D. Fan

Seattle University School of Law is also having speakers on this and related topics as part of its Diversity Week 2011. Thursday afternoon has a CLE, Advocacy Strategies for Protecting Civil Rights (3:30-5:30), followed by a reception (5:30-7:30):

The reception following the CLE will provide a forum to discuss how lawyers, law students and community members can address racial bias in the criminal justice system. The discussion will be facilitated by the Co-Chairs of the Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System, Professor Robert Chang, director of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, and Judge Steven González, chair of the WA Access to Justice Board.

If you're inspired by the UW panel, you can hop up Capitol Hill for the reception at SU.

More on The New Jim Crow

Real Change has a long interview with Michelle Alexander, the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (see earlier post). Rosette Royale, One Nation, Under Lock and Key, Real Change, Feb. 9-15, 2011.

Judges Surveyed About Lawyers

How well do lawyers represent their clients? It's a hard question to answer. One approach would be to ask the judges who observe the lawyers at work, and that's just what Judge Richard A. Posner and Professor Albert H. Yoon have done: What Judges Think of the Quality of Legal Representation, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 317 (2010).

Here's the short version of their findings, from the abstract:

We find that judges perceive significant disparities in the quality of legal representation, both within and across areas of the law. In many instances, the underlying causes of these disparities can be traced to the resources of the litigants. The judges’ responses also suggest that they respond differently than juries to these disparities, and that the effect of these disparities on juries may be more pronounced in civil than in criminal cases.

But don't stop with the abstract! The more detailed findings are very interesting.

Judges' backgrounds.
I was surprised to see the number of judges with experience in criminal defense, since I heard or read somewhere that prosecutors more often became judges. But the patterns vary between trial and appellate courts and between federal and state courts.

exp	fed app	fed trial	state app	state trial
crim defense	19%	36%	29%	40%
prosecution	9%	14%	29%	44%

p. 323.

Disparities in civil cases.
The civil areas where federal trial judges saw the greatest disparity were civil rights and personal injury/malpractice. When there was a disparity, the defendant had better representation. State judges saw the greatest disparities in family law and personal injury/malpractice. Again, when there was a disparity in the tort cases, it was generally the defense that had the advantage.

Judges said that intellectual property and commercial litigation cases seldom had a great disparity between the sides' lawyers. These lawyers were rated between "good" and "excellent" -- i.e., at the top of the scale.

What about criminal cases?

Federal judges exhibited a clear divide, ranking public defenders highest, followed closely by prosecutors. Both federal appellate and district judges deemed court-appointed and privately retained counsel markedly (and statistically significantly) worse, although they disagreed which group was the worst. In contrast, state judges perceived greater parity among criminal lawyers, with both appellate and trial judges giving their highest ratings to retained counsel. Appellate judges generally gave similarly high scores to prosecutors and public defenders, whereas trial judges thought privately retained counsel distinctly better than other criminal lawyers.

pp. 325-26 (footnotes omitted). Judges across all categories said that they observed significant disparities in quality between prosecution and defense 21-40% of the time.


When there is a disparity in representation, many judges conduct additional research. p. 335. (But they aren't happy about this burden -- see p. 346.) The judges thought that many jurors favor litigants with better lawyers, but they thought they themselves could rise above the disparate representation. p. 326. But in many situations, they thought that the representation did not make much difference to the outcomes of the cases. p. 327. The authors discuss this perception -- and related studies about the impact of counsel in criminal cases -- at pp. 341-43.

Change law school?
The survey asked judges what could be done to improve the quality of representation.

About law schools, judges were in general agreement. The most common response in each judge group was that law schools should provide more coursework oriented to instilling practice-oriented skills. The second most popular response was expansion of core curriculum—-that is, courses required of all students—-to ensure a stronger foundation for practice. More than two-thirds of the judges in each group proposed changes in law school curricula, while no more than 10% in any group recommended higher admissions standards. Recommendations to make tuition more affordable drew slightly higher but still modest support (ranging between 5% and 14%).

p. 338 (footnote omitted)

The judges would like to see better trial skills:

Judges expressed concern about the effectiveness of the bar at trial advocacy. One federal district judge remarked that lawyers are “smart, well-prepared and know the law and write great briefs—but if the case goes to trial, their trial skills are nowhere near what their pre-trial skills were.”

p. 346

The whole article is worth a look: there are lots of interesting nuggets, and the footnotes cite other intriguing studies about lawyers' effectiveness.

Loans for Lawsuits: High Price, Little Regulation

The New York Times and the Center for Public Integrity (a nonprofit for investigative journalism in DC) took a look at the industry that lends money to plaintiffs until their settlements or awards come in. The interest rates are very high -- a $10,000 loan can become a $30,000 debt very quickly -- but the industry says they are justified because of the risk that the plaintiffs lose their cases. Others say the practice is abusive. See Benjamin Appelbaum, Lawsuit Loans Add New Risk for the Injured, Jan. 16, 2011.