Updated: An Odd Form of Patronage

I operate on what I call the first-date rule when it comes to potential clients. It cost me a client the other day. I am blaming an unlikely matchmaker.

The first-date rule operates in the following manner: A client is referred to you. You meet the client, or speak with them on the telephone. During that first date, you learn why the client is seeking a lawyer. You assess the issue that led them to your door. You give an assessment of how the issue might be resolved. You answer questions put to you. You ask the potential client what success would like. It’s a first date really, two strangers deciding whether to take one another on in a journey that could well define the rest of at least one party’s life. At the meeting’s end, the matter of a fee is discussed.

In almost every instance, I tell a potential client to sleep on the choice of counsel overnight. You wouldn’t make a vow to a stranger to stand by you in sickness and health, for better or worse, on a first date. You ought not to make such a vow upon first laying eyes on a lawyer. Check out other lawyers, I tell them. Only hire me if you are comfortable with me. It’s a matter of chemistry, like a marriage, I tell them.

Not long ago I met a potential client. The client’s parents called and told me their child had been arrested. The charges were very serious. The child, an adult, was in custody. Would I go to see the arrestee?

I asked the parents how they found me. They explained who the referral was. I agreed to see their child.

The attorney-client privilege prohibits me from disclosing the content of any discussion I had with the child. For purposes of this column, assume it went along the lines you read moments ago.

As I was leaving the lock up, a Gold Coast lawyer sauntered up. He was at the facility to see the same person. Was I representing the client? No, I explained. The parents asked me to visit. I met with their child and told the child to sleep on the decision. The lawyer explained that he had received a call from a public defender about the case. The child had just been arrested, and it was obvious that he would not qualify for a public defender.

It struck me as odd and troubling to think that public defenders were in the practice of referring clients ineligible for their services to private lawyers. What form of patronage is this?, I wondered.

Not more than ten minutes later, the Gold Coast lawyer walked out of the holding cell and informed me, with a sheepish look on his face, that he was representing the client. No first-date rule for this fellow: He dove right in after the fee, and I suspect he charged a large one, given the foreseeable issues in the case.

On the drive back to my office, I seethed about the lost fee. Should I have cut a deal on the spot, and eschewed the first-date rule? Don’t clients want to be swept off their feet, and to be promised the world? The client is in no better hands for having succumbed to the blandishments of the lawyer who romanced him for a Connecticut minute.

I put a call into the public defender who referred a client he could not represent to another lawyer. I tried to be polite. I had reason to believe that the public defender knew I was contacted by the parents.

"I am used the government making wild accusations," the public defender began. I stopped him in his tracks: the best defense may be a good offense, but I wasn’t going to be steam-rolled twice in one day. I pushed back. Had I fallen into his disfavor?, I asked. He explained he made the referral before knowing anything about my being contacted by the family. I accept that at face value.

But I don’t accept the fact that public defenders are in the business of referring folks ineligible for their services to private counsel of their choice. That seems wrong to me. Of course, it is possible that the client decided I was not the right lawyer. Chemistry matters.

Certainly the client in this case will be well served by the well-heeled counsel. I would have done as good a job. What is clear is that I need to spend more time stroking the public defenders in the state and federal courts. They’ve got unintended spoils to pass out. Who would have thought?

NOTE TO "CORRIE:"  There is nothing wrong with a public defender's giving a recommendation when asked. In this case, the public defender never met the client or his family. The public defender simply concluded the client was not eligible and made a blind referral, apparently without realizing the family had made a choice of its own. I am sorry the context was not clear.

Reprinted courtesy of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Comments: (6)

  • Unintended Spoils to Pass Out
    This is terrible. Public Pretenders be damned: Overworked, underpaid imposters who graduated at the bottom of their third-rate law schools that nobody ever heard of. P.S.: Follow the Money; it's all about the money. Forget "justice", the Constitution, due process, rules of procedure, case history and precedent. It's a farce and a total charade. Good luck!?! Getting caught in the criminal "justice" system is like swimming in a big jar of molasses: No matter how hard you try, you can't get out.
    Posted on September 1, 2011 at 1:51 pm by william doriss
  • An Odd Form of Patronage
    doesn't matter the profession...it's who you know or...worse.
    don't lower your standards.
    Posted on September 1, 2011 at 11:14 pm by portia
  • Some Patronage
    Norm, I'm disappointed in you. What's wrong with a public defender recommending an attorney to an ineligible defendant who asks, Do you know of any good attorneys in the area? Do you know of any attorneys who have a lot of experience in sex cases? Who are buds with the prosecutors and will get me the best possible deal?
    Posted on September 2, 2011 at 6:30 pm by Corrie
  • Some Patronage
    With that clarification, then I tend to agree with you. Now lets clear up one other thing. I take it that when you say "it was obvious that a public defender would not be qualified," you mean that the client was not qualified for the services of a public defender, and that was not merely a Freudian slip. I see from at least one reader, public defenders are viewed as third-rate lawyers; and I'd be even more disappointed if you shared that mindset.
    Corrie: Right again. I edited to reflect that. In my view, the public defenders in Connecticut are among the very best criminal defense lawyers in the state. And that includes the person who made the troubling referral in this case.
    Posted on September 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm by Corrie
  • Public Pretenders
    Re: the below comment, I repeat my belief that "public" pretenders in CT are NOT among the best. It's a myth, a will o' the wisp which you idiots keep telling yourselves, aka "wishful thinking." If you are overworked, underpaid, carry an excessively high case load, how on god's green earth are you going to be able to do your job properly? If you do not have the resources or time to do a proper investigation of your client's claims of innocence, how can you honestly say that you're doing your job?
    Posted on September 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm by william doriss
  • Public Pretenders II
    Inquiring Minds demand answers! The CT bar: CDLs, public pretenders, judges and prosectors, appellate judges, etc, etc. all belong to one big self-congratulatory fraternity which gorges itself at the public/private trough. That's my unmoved opinion, having sat at the defense table for two miserable weeks at GA 23, suffering malicious prosecution by the State. Trust it, people!
    Posted on September 4, 2011 at 4:36 pm by william doriss

Add a Comment

Display with comment:
Won't show with comment:
How many sides does a triangle have?
*Comment must be approved and then will show on page.
© Norm Pattis is represented by Elite Lawyer Management, managing agents for Exceptional American Lawyers
Media & Speaker booking [hidden email]