Brief filed: 07/20/2018
Grubbs v. Brown
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 18-670
Decision below 2018 WL 1225262 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2018)
The District Court’s ruling minimizes and overlooks the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of open and uninhibited attorney-client communications. The decision overlooks the critical pre-arraignment consultation between attorney and client. Adequate representation in arraignments requires an attorney to build trust with his client within minutes of their first meeting. The advice provided during pre-arraignment consultation informs decisions with far-reaching consequences. The decisions disregards how the presence of video cameras in attorney-client consultation booths prevents free and open communication in violation of attorney’s ethical obligations, the Sixth Amendment and the 1999 Settlement Order. The decision ignores the legitimate fears of attorneys and their clients that the recordings may be abused. The decision gives inadequate justification for the presence of video cameras in attorney-client consultation booths.
Shannon M. Leitner, Stephen Pearson, and Linda H. Martin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, New York, NY; Brent Wible, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Washington, DC; Richard D. Willstatter, White Plains, NY.