The Matlock Blog

Please place all metal objects and your dignity in the tub...

Damn terrorists.  I can't even go to the grocery store without having to go through a metal detector.  There is increased security practically everywhere.  Of course, in many instances it's necessary.  There are many places that, for whatever reason, require increased security and that security often comes in the way of a metal detector.  No....my grocery store is not one of them.  Yet.

But one such place is your friendly Tim Curry Justice Center.  I'm told It’s a place filled with con men, crooks and killers.  So, I suppose, it's no surprise that in order to enter the court house, you must wait in line, disrobe, and successfully pass through a metal detector.  Well, at least some people do.

If you're someone charged with a crime, I suppose it's reasonable to subject you to increased security checks.  I'm not begrudging anyone that.  But what if you're just someone offering some moral support for your friend that has to go to court for a first-time petty theft case?  Trying to help your friend when she's no idea what to do or what to expect?  Are you a security risk?  Apparently.

What if you're a lawyer?  What if, day in and day out, you work in the court house?  Are you a security risk then?  Should you be subjected to security?  

What if you work in an office filing papers all day?  Does that job require you to be subjected to security every time you walk into the court house?  

Well, the answer is yes.  And no.

If you watch the entrances at the court house you will see that most people are herded through the security points.  However, not if you work in the court house.  Well, let me rephrase that.  Not if you work in the court house and also work for Tarrant County.

You're a lawyer that works in the court house every day.  If you're a prosecutor, you breeze right past security.  If you're a defense attorney, you must go through security.  Actually, if you're any other attorney, you must pass through security.

If you work in the clerk's office filing papers all day, you breeze right past security.  If you're just there to help a friend.  Or look something up.  Or watch a trial.  Or pay your cousin's court fees.  You must endure security.

Why is that?  Why are you deemed less of a person than a county employee?

Apparently, by the mere fact that you work for Tarrant County, you are somehow immune from ever being a security risk.  And truthfully, I have no idea how that is.  Is it possible that Tarrant County has the single best hiring process in the universe that they are able to foresee their employees will never, ever be a security risk?  Or is it just possible that the powers that be in Tarrant County don't feel their employees should be subjected to the routine of the common person?  

God forbid the almighty Tom Wilder, District Clerk have an employee subjected to such an insulting procedure.  What would his friends say?

Why is it that a person that works in the clerk's office or the D.A.'s office is held to a lower standard than you?  Or me?  Or anyone else that wants to go to the court house?

Of course, I don't hold it against those that work in the clerk's office or the D.A.'s office for being able to breeze through.  Nor am I saying they somehow indeed are security risks.  I'm just saying...

It's been said, the business of the courts is the business of the people.  That may still be true, but only if the people are willing to pass through security to see it.  

But what the hell do I know?

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in....

"Damn.  He's back."

I can hear the comments, sighs and general discontent echo through the halls of the hallowed Tarrant County Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center.  Let's be honest, few people ever really enjoyed this little blog.  Most, given the option, would say they hate it and think it merely a tool for my own self-aggrandizement and desire to complain as only I can.  Actually, they did say that, didn't they?

But now I feel just like Michael Corleone.  "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

How can I not make a return when our own Criminal District Attorney Joe Shannon has decided the prosecution-collective will have its own blog entitled....wait for it....wait for it....um...."Crime Blog."  Catchy, huh?  Hey, who am I to criticize?  Have you seen the title to this one?

Crime Blog, which apparently doesn't have it's own address, but rather a link from the D.A.'s general website, appears to want to give the populace an insight into the day-to-day operations of the D.A.'s office.  It is heralded as well, a pretty damn opinionated piece of media where there are "heros" and "saints" and victims galore.  And "where good battles evil.  And on most days, the good guys win."  Wow....I wonder who's who?

I must admit I am somewhat conflicted about writing about this.  I seriously doubt the inestimable  Crime Blog will ever, ever, EVER talk about this blog.  Much less link to it.  But here I am.  Perpetuating the blogsanity.  See what I did there?

But I shall indeed not only mention and link to our District Attorney's not-so-vailed attempt to influence the jury pool (sound familiar?), but will use this soon-to-be media/ ethical train wreck as an opportunity to make my return to the the blogosphere.....to return to the game ala Willis Reed....like Jimmy Connors in the 1991 U.S. Open.....like Superman back from the Fortress of Solitude.....too much?  

For quite some time, prosecutors complained about this little blog.  Now, they have their own.  

Game on.

But what the hell do I know?

I'm just not that in to you

There seems to be a perception that clients (or perhaps more appropriately, potential clients) possess all of the bargaining power when choosing an attorney.  I think this is based on the idea that the client needs an attorney and the attorney needs clients, and sense the attorney can't go get clients, he needs the clients that come to him.  Personally, that's crap.

Make no mistake.  I want clients.  I like clients.  Practically speaking, I need clients to keep the doors open.  But that doesn't mean I agree to represent everyone that walks through the front door.  Unfortunately, there are too many attorneys that do just that.  And that leads to problems.

I have worked in firms where the primary goal was "signing up clients."  There was no regard for whether the firm was best-suited, or even well-suited, to represent the particular client.  Aside from the basic practice area differentiation (this is a family law case, and all I do is criminal defense, for example), it seems little consideration is paid to whether the attorney and client can work well together, if at all.

Lawyers should be choosier, if that's a word.  This is not so much about marketing or peace of mind or quality of life, as it is quality of representation.  Of course this presupposes the attorney tries to provide the best representation he can, rather than make money.  If the attorney is only concerned about making money, he will never turn down a client.  He will outbid, make promises and do everything else he can to get that potential client to hire him.  

However, for the attorney that truly cares about providing the best representation possible, sometimes you have to turn clients away.  It's hard.  It's extremely difficult to tell someone you're not able or willing to represent them when they are willing to throw a lot of money at you.  But they say money can't buy happiness, and sometimes certain clients don't make you happy at all.

The single most important attribute for a successful attorney-client relationship is trust.  It's not skill, resources, or knowledge.  It's trust.  And it goes both ways.  Not only must the client trust what the attorney is telling her, but the attorney must trust the client.  Anything else will cause problems.  How many problems and to what extent vary, but if there is no trust, there will rarely be much success.  Or happiness.  

Since I opened my own office, I decided I would only take the cases that I thought I was well-suited to defend.  As a general rule, there is no "type" of criminal case I won't handle.  However, there have been a number of individual potential clients that I have refused to represent.  

First, I have no problem with attorneys that refuse to defend certain "types" of criminal cases.  I know some that refuse to handle child sexual assault cases or capital murder cases or injury to the elderly cases.  It seems obvious to me that the reason is the attorney knows they wouldn't be able to effectively represent the person, and attempting to would hurt the client.  I actually think that's admirable.

Personally, I have not run across the type of factual scenario in a case that I would be unwilling to defend.  But, as some like to point out, I don't have the life experience others have.  

But why don't attorneys use the same selection process when it comes to individual clients?  I see the results all the time.  An attorney complaining about their client because of whatever reason.  Obviously there are circumstances to which I am unaware, but there is an easy way to avoid the headaches.

There have been a number of potential clients whom I have refused to represent, for whatever reason.  Sometimes it was because I could tell mom/ dad/ husband/ girlfriend was really calling the shots.  Sometimes it was because the client had completely unrealistic expectations.  Sometimes, quite frankly, it was because I didn't think I could trust them.  

If I can't trust my client, how can I effectively represent them?  This is not the age old question of how can I defend someone that told me they did it.  This has nothing to do with trusting whether the person is innocent.  If I only defended factually innocent people, I probably wouldn't have many clients. 

Instead this type of trust deals with me knowing that if my client tells me she will do something, that I know it will be done.  When there is no trust, there can be no success.  I firmly believe this.

Yet day in and day out, attorneys agree to represent clients they don't trust.  If attorneys paid more attention to whether there could be a successful attorney-client relationship that is built on trust, there would be fewer problems.  

So, if you come to see me, don't assume I will want to represent you.  Sometimes I don't trust a word some potential clients tell me.  Sometimes, I'm just not that in to you.

But what the hell do I know?