The Matlock Blog

Where's the reset button on this thing?

Perhaps we have become accustomed to picking up the morning newspaper and reading another story of a wrongfully convicted person freed because DNA proved the person did not commit the crime in question.   As a general rule, there is no question a crime was committed, but rather the issue is who was responsible for its commission.  Until now.

A recently-released report conducted for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which investigated an alleged arson allegedly committed by Cameron Todd Willingham in Corsicana in 1991, pointedly states there was no crime at all.

That's right, we are beyond the idea of convicting the wrong person for the crime.  Now we have moved on to convicting innocent people for having committed no crime at all.  Pretty impressive, huh?

According to the report conducted by Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates, Inc, an international fire science firm, there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim the fire was caused by arson, rather than an accident as Willingham claimed.  According to the report, the Texas state fire marshall had "limited understanding" of fire science, and "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created."  

In other words, the fire marshall knows as much about fires as I do.  You know, I have a saying I like to use.  "If I did my job as well as so-and-so did theirs, I'd be disbarred."  I don't think its a stretch to apply it here.  

As it turns out, based on this fire marshall's "collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation," Willingham was convicted of the 1991 fire that took the lives of his own children.  He was executed by lethal injection in February, 2004 after never wavering in his claim of innocence.  

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?