This discussion examines the roles of race, power, and engagement in the attorney-client relationship.

Presented by Gina Pruski, Director of Training and Development, Wisconsin State Public Defender

Race Matters II: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
January 10-11, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA

Presented by Callie Glanton Steele, Senior Litigator, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Central District of California (Los Angeles)

Race Matters II: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
January 10-11, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA

Presented by Nan Whitfield, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender

Race Matters II: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
January 10-11, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA

How to Protect Your Client's Online Reputation with NetReputation.com

This month Susan Elizabeth Reese reviews Trial Lawyer: A Life Representing People Against Power by Richard Zitrin.

This webinar focuses on the unique ethical challenges appellate attorneys encounter in their attorney-client relationships. Topics include the nature and scope of the client’s role and rights regarding the decision to appeal and the issues to be raised in the appeal, the attorney-client relationship when an attorney is pursuing an Anders brief, responsibilities when ending appellate representation, and overall communications with the client during the appellate process.

NACDL urges this Court to grant Petitioners' motions challenging the Government's Memorandum of Understanding Governing Continued Contact Between Counsel/Translator and Detainee Following Termination of the [Guantánamo] Detainee's Habeas Case. NACDL also encourages this Court to hold that Judge Hogan's Protective Order continues to apply to Petitioners, and that the Government may not condition Petitioners' access to counsel on counsel's submission to the new MOU.

Comments to the Judicial Conference of the United States Practice & Procedure Committee regarding a proposed amendment to define how federal courts should navigate an emergency suspension of rules (new Criminal Rule 62), such as those posed by COVID-19 and directed by the CARES Act (H.R. 748, 2020).

Brief of Amici Curiae Prison Law Office, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Nevada, Ethics Bureau at Yale, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and National Juvenile Defender Center in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and in Support of Reversal.

Argument: Nevada Department of Correction (NDOC) staff’s acts of listening to confidential legal calls burden attorneys’ First Amendment Rights. NDOC staff’s practice of listening to legal calls impairs attorneys’ duty to communicate and keep clients reasonably informed. NDOC staff’s actions prevent attorneys from complying with their ethical duty of confidentiality. NDOC staff’s actions prevent attorneys from complying with their ethical duties of competent and diligent representation.

Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant.

Argument: For two weeks, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and Warden Herman Quay denied inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn (“MDC”) access to counsel and confined them to their cells with no light, little to no heat in the dead of winter, and no access to essential medical treatments. The District Court held that only the inmates themselves could bring suit to remedy the situation. This case presents a question of prudence not standing. The Federal Defenders should have the ability to enforce the right to counsel. The effective assistance of counsel is central to the functioning of our adversarial system. Assistance of counsel is impossible without attorney-client access. The Federal Defenders have strong incentives to protect the right to counsel. The Federal Defenders are an ideal candidate for enforcing the right to counsel.

Amicus's [NACDL and ACDL-NJ] Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Enforce Compliance with the Subpoena.

Argument: A subpoena directed to a defendant's lawyer is potentially damaging to the attorney-client relationship and can impinge on the constitutional right to counsel. The State is not entitled to the protected attorney-client communications because the State already has all the information it seeks and has not made a showing that the information cannot be obtained from a less intrusive source. The crime-fraud exception does not permit the intrusive probing questions proffered by the state. 

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (on petition for writ of certiorari).

Argument: Attorney grand jury subpoenas erode attorney-client relationships, threaten to disqualify defense counsel and risk creating collateral litigation that serves to burden and distract defense attorneys; they are “disruptive at best, and fatal to the client’s representation at worst.” Max D. Stern & David Hoffman, Privileged Informers: The Attorney Subpoena Problem and a Proposal for Reform, 136 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1783, 1789 (1988). In turn, they risk giving prosecutors an unfair (if unintended) advantage. Rules like New Mexico’s mitigate these risks by discouraging the use of attorney subpoenas except where necessary.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner. 

Argument: The accused's express decision whether to concede guilt is protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Failure to heed a client's decision to maintain his innocence violates fundamental rights. Conceding guilt against a client's express desire compromises the fundamental right to plead not guilty. Conceding guilt against a client's express desire compromises the fundamental right regarding testimony on one's own behalf. A defense lawyer's trial strategy may not override a client's express decision to maintain innocence. Making concessions can be a sound strategy. Regardless of potential strategic advantages, defense lawyers may not override a client's express desire to maintain innocence. Permitting defense lawyers to override a client's desire to maintain innocence undermines the attorney-client relationship. Defense lawyers have strategic options beyond conceding guilt.

DOJ Policy on Privilege Waivers Disappoints Defense Bar - Washington, DC (December 13, 2006) -- The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a leading member of the Coalition to Protect the Attorney Client Privilege, appreciates the deliberation that went into the Justice Department’s new policy guidelines on corporate investigations (the McNulty Memorandum) issued today. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the nation’s largest voluntary bar organization dedicated to the defense of individuals and organizations accused of criminal misconduct.