« The Incredible Shrinking NLRB |
Main
| When It Comes to High-Profile Matters, It's Not the Cases You Know, but the Company You Keep »
There's Overbilling... and Then There's Under-Billing
We're all too familiar with outrageous cases of overbilling by lawyers. But believe it or not, lawyers sometimes under-bill -- that is, devote too few resources to a case. And that can harm clients just as much as an exorbitant fee.
Consider the budget-driven approach taken by two local Kentucky lawyers, Public Defender David Barron and state attorney, Jeff Middendorf, who played key roles in Supreme Court case Baze v. Rees, that addresses whether Kentucky's lethal injection drug protocol amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. According to this story from the Kentucky Herald Leader, David Barron, who represents the capital defendants drove to Washington D.C. for the argument in "an aging Toyota Corolla with temperamental tires and an odometer pushing past 233,000 miles." And Middendorf, who represents the Kentucky Department of Corrections flew to Washington last week for practice arguments, then returned home this past weekend "because it was cheaper than staying five days in Washington."
Honestly, did the state of Kentucky really lack the funds to put its lawyer up in a hotel in Washington for the weekend, so that he could get in some extra preparation away from the distraction of his young family? And couldn't the PD's office fork up enough cash to enable Barron to fly up to Washington instead of driving a battered vehicle that could have broken down and left him stranded and stressed days before the most important case of his life, not to mention the life of his client? In my view, both of these lawyers seriously compromised their respective clients' cases with their penny pinching ways. They should have demanded that their employers found a way for them to travel to D.C. in minimal comfort, if not luxurious style, so that they could focus exclusively on preparing for the upcoming arguments. Indeed, I'd go so far to say that if their employers wouldn't cover the cost, then Barron and Middendorf should have paid their own way, or (at least in Barron's case), looked to pro bono organizations to subsidize travel expenses.
I'm as much a fan of the inspirational, against-all-odds tales of victory by small town lawyers as anyone. But while unyielding adherence to the country lawyer stereotype makes for good drama, at the end of the day, it can harm the client. And isn't that who matters most?
Correction: Ultimately, Washington counsel, rather than Barron and Middendorf presented the arguments before the court, but still, I believe that they should have been afforded an opportunity to participate fully in the case, without concerns about budget contraints.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on January 7, 2008 at 02:26 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)