Rare but not unprecedented.

So, apologies all around. For those seeking out new content from me, I apologize for the brief hiatus. For those who hoped I’d stop at 500 posts, I apologize because for not stopping.

For the first of what I hope will be at least another 500, let’s talk about a recent disbarment action that involves disbarment of a type of lawyer that is often discussed as being an infrequent occurrence — a prosecutor.

Roughly two weeks ago, the Kansas Supreme Court entered an over 100-page opinion disbarring a prosecutor with 30 years of experience over her conduct in connection with the prosecution of two separate cases.

One, which went to trial in March 2012 involved allegations of double-homicide. After 10 days of trial testimony from 80 witnesses and almost 1000 exhibits, a jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree murder with life sentences in prison. That conviction was overturned in 2018 based on prosecutorial misconduct.

The other involved the prosecution of six sex crime cases against a defendant. The Kansas lawyer was serving as a Special Prosecutor in that matter and took two of the cases to trial over the course of five days in June 2017. The jury returned guilty verdicts on multiple charges. That matter was again appealed based on a number of alleged errors at trial including an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. That conviction was also reversed based on cumulative error and a finding was made of an error by the Kansas prosecutor but not misconduct. Importantly, while the handling of this matter was the subject of the disciplinary proceedings, the Kansas lawyer ultimately was found not to have committed any ethical misconduct as to that second proceeding. Thus, in the end, the disbarment was imposed only for misconduct in the handling of one criminal case.

I recently spoke to a large prosecutors’ group from a state other than my own for an ethics presentation. How much, or little, prosecutors may feel targeted by disciplinary authorities definitely differs from state to state. Two things tend to be clear, however. While prominent legal voices will write pretty incessantly about how little discipline is ever meted out against prosecutors, when you talk to prosecutors, they all tend to feel very much like their segment of the bar is singled out for disciplinary prosecution in scenarios where public defenders or even private practice counsel would be spared. The second thing that tends to be clear is that there is a pretty relatively standard recipe for when prosecutors do end up getting disciplined.

Nearly every ingredient in that recipe is present in the story of these two overturned convictions. The first is the fact that the convictions in question were actually overturned. The other involves the nature of the ethical infractions, as other than any allegation of withholding of evidence in violation of RPC 3.8, aspects of all of the other rules that really move the needle in these situations are addressed.

Many of the transgressions involved statements made by the prosecutor in her opening statements and closing arguments. The rules are clear for both prosecutors and other lawyers that there are certain statements that cannot be made during trial, including alluding to matters “that the lawyer does not reasonably believe [are] relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence.” That same portion of the rules also can be transgressed by lawyers who become personally wrapped up in their work by stating “personal opinion[s] as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness… or the guilt or innocence of an accused.” With respect to one aspect of the conduct, the prosecutor made statements found to be in direct contravention of court rulings that the subject matter should not be discussed. Often, in instances when there are statements running afoul of those rules made by prosecutors, then disciplinary authorities will also double up the charges by treating them also as conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice,” contrary to RPC 8.4(d).

But the Kansas story also involves something that is unusual when speaking of the “typical” story of prosecutor discipline but that almost always creates problems for lawyers trying to avoid being disciplined — a conclusion that the lawyer lied under oath to the disciplinary board during the disciplinary proceedings. Here, statements in a sworn statement that ultimately were admitted to be false during cross-examination in the disciplinary proceedings.

Should racists be permitted to practice law?

This is a question I’ve asked in the past. It is not instinctively an easy question to wrestle with. It can easily boil over into various slippery-slope arguments and accusations regarding risk of inviting concepts of the “thought police” and the like.

But another news item invites the question back into the arena for further discussion. This ABA Journal online story details efforts of two criminal defendants to seek relief from their convictions/guilty pleas because of information that has emerged indicating that the Massachusetts lawyer that represented them in their cases was a racist. That lawyer was appointed to and assigned to these cases through Massachusetts’ public defender agency.

In terms of the facts of the matter, there are at least two interesting wrinkles.

One, the lawyer in question has now passed away and cannot speak further in the matter to defend himself. Two, the proof of the asserted racism on the part of the deceased lawyers come from a variety of Facebook messages believed to be attributable to the deceased lawyer.

The posts in question are collected at the link above, but also appear in an affidavit filed by the public defender agency through which the lawyer was appointed to the cases. (Unless you are truly looking for offensive stuff to read, I would skip the link though.) As happens at a surprisingly frequent rate, these posts were easily accessible because the lawyer left his Facebook profile set to public access rather than limiting his posts to being viewed only by his Facebook friends.

Both of the defendants seeking relief — are African American males of the Islamic faith. One seeks leave to withdraw a guilty plea while the other is seeking a new trial in a case in which he was convicted of armed assault with intent to commit murder.

One of the avenues of pushback that arises in kicking around issues regarding whether racist beliefs are so inherently disqualifying for someone to be a lawyer or not tends to be lots of examples, both historical and verifiable and anecdotal, of lawyers being able to represent clients that they found to be repugnant or clients who had horrible racist or even genocidal views directed towards a class of people that would include the lawyer.

There is certainly no question that open-minded, non-racist lawyers are entirely capable of representing, for example, people who are racist. But those examples don’t really move the needle.

What there do not seem to be are examples of things working out well in the opposite direction. Examples of situations in which a racist attorney is able to competently and zealously represent a client who is a member of a group that the racist attorney hates and thinks is “lesser” than they are.

Now, are the lack of those examples simply a lack of data that is out there and exists — perhaps in part because there are few examples of people who are attorneys but who are open about their racist views? Or do such lawyers simply turn down all such cases where they would have to represent someone outside of the group with which they align themselves? (And that might be something they are simply required to do after all under RPC 1.16 and 1.7 if their own personal interests would create a significant risk of material limitation on the representation.) Or is the lack of such examples an inevitable consequence of the inherent problem?

There are obvious First Amendment concerns as the issuance of a law license is something done by the government and evaluating someone’s views that manifest themselves through speech can be problematic when it amounts to the government favoring one form of speech over another. But, aspiring lawyers already do face inquiries into character and fitness that sometimes can straddle that line in ways that the profession seems to tolerate and, of course, lawyers often have aspects of their First Amendment rights hampered by ethics rules when they are engaged in representing a client

Nevertheless, I’m still left pondering a variation of the question I left off with over 4 years ago:

Does empowering a racist by conferring a license to practice law on them something that is inherently prejudicial to the administration of justice?

2020 too?

This past year has certainly been … something. Other than the ongoing pandemic, this year feels like it will historically be defined (at least within the United States) by the various assaults on democracy starting with the January 6 insurrection, continuing with the efforts of one political party to choose its voters rather than vice versa, and being bolstered along the way by a surprisingly large number of attorneys willing to file politically-motivated lawsuits that in normal circumstances I’d like to think wouldn’t pass muster under Rule 11 or RPC 3.1.

These anti-democracy lawsuits continue relentlessly with a parade of lawyers who don’t seem at all deterred by sanctions imposed against other lawyers.

So what will 2022 bring? Other than hopefully the end of the pandemic. Surely we will get that. Surely.

Here is where I go out on a limb and make a prediction or too about the world of legal ethics over the next year.

First, given the focus of media attention on lawyers who continue to help high-profile clients pursue questionable legal objectives — not all of which involve subverting democracy of course — I think there will be significant attention and action taken on further defining prohibitions on lawyers assisting unworthy clients in illegal endeavors.

Along those lines, with a particular focus on combatting lawyer-involvement in money-laundering activities, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Regulation circulated thoughts on potential ways to address that issue better in the ethics rules in a memo put out seeking public input on December 15, 2021. The memo previews a number of possible ways that the comments to the rules could be amended to better define obligations of lawyers in doing due diligence on clients and toward having lawyers have obligations to report suspicious activity.

Interestingly, the memo floats no proposed changes to any rules but only in the guidance offered in comments to rules. Thus, for example, there would be no effort under such a proposal to remove any ethical barriers that currently exist to forcing attorneys to support suspicious transactions beyond what already would be required by law. The potential revisions include:

  • Addition of a new Comment [11] to RPC 1.0 indicating that, as to a lawyer’s knowledge, that it “may be derived from the lawyer’s direct observation, credible information provided by others, reasonable factual inferences, or other circumstances.” And that a lawyer “who ignores or consciously avoids obvious relevant facts may be found to have knowledge of those facts.”
  • Adding several new sentences of guidance to Comment [5] to RPC 1.1 including: “In some circumstances, competent representation may require verifying, or inquiring into, facts provided by the client. Ignoring or consciously avoiding obvious relevant facts, or failure to inquire when warranted, may violate the duty of competence.”
  • Adding significant new language to the Comment to RPC 1.2 including: “To determine whether further inquiry is warranted regarding whether a client is seeking the lawyer’s assistance in criminal or fraudulent activity, including money-laundering or terrorist financing, relevant considerations include: (i) the identity of the client; (ii) the lawyer’s familiarity with the client; (iii) the nature of the requested legal services; and (iv) the relevant jurisdictions involved in the representation (when a jurisdiction is classified by credible sources as high risk for criminal or fraudulent activity).”

You can read the entire memo here and, if you happen to be planning to be in Seattle in February, you can plan to participate in a public roundtable discussion about the potential proposals.

Another area that I predict will be the subject of significant attention in 2022 is whether changes to RPC 5.5 are needed to better address modern legal practice. The restrictions imposed on the ability of a lawyer duly licensed in one state to represent clients in other states or to handle matters because they involve laws of a different state have been questioned, off-and-on, over the years, but the last almost two years of practice in a pandemic has helped push things to a potential boiling point. Perhaps never before has it been easier to make people see the relative-absurdity that RPC 5.5 can prohibit a lawyer with 20 years of business law experience licensed in South Dakota from representing a client in North Dakota who needs a contract drafted but would not prohibit a lawyer licensed in South Dakota who has never handled a tax matter in 20 years of litigation experience from representing a South Dakota client in a tax dispute. I anticipate that 2022 will bring efforts from a number of different groups to seek to modify RPC 5.5 to better offer “full faith and credit” to a lawyer’s law license.

In the meantime, thank you ever so much for your readership, stay safe, and I will see you again in January 2022.

A companion piece.

As I inch ever closer to my 400th blogpost here, today’s offering is something of a companion piece to a post I wrote almost exactly 13 months ago that demonstrates what should be an obvious point, what is a very important point in the world of disciplinary defense but much less obvious, and at least one highly curious one.

This post involves, Sherri Jefferson, a Georgia lawyer who has now been disbarred over what was largely the same sort of conduct that got the Pennsylvania lawyer in trouble who was the subject of that earlier post.

I’ll let the headline from The ABA Journal online article – which is what first caught my eye – explain: “Lawyer disbarred after she’s accused of having romantic involvement with client and hiring detective to spy on him.”

It’s a pretty good headline but it omits, as headlines sometimes must for space reasons, the important thing that happened between romance and spying – the client stopped being a client and started dating another woman. This paragraph of the disbarment order gives the expanded details but still in a pretty succinct fashion:

Jefferson represented an individual from 2008 to 2010 in a custody modification action; during the representation, Jefferson and that individual were romantically involved. This relationship led to the filing of a disciplinary matter against Jefferson, but the matter was subsequently dismissed by this Court in 2014. During the pendency of that disciplinary matter, Jefferson’s former client began dating another woman and, following the dismissal of that matter, Jefferson hired a private investigator to conduct an investigation including surreptitious surveillance of the former client, his son, and the other woman. Additionally, Jefferson falsely disparaged the other woman to the woman’s employer, including making false and misleading statements about the custody proceeding.

The important, and obvious, point here being that bad ethical conduct from lawyers driven by jealousy is not exclusively the province of male lawyers. Jefferson also did not make matters any better for herself thereafter by making a number of provably false statements during criminal proceedings that arose after criminal warrants for stalking and defamation were filed against her.

Jefferson also made a strategic decision in the defense of her disciplinary case that tees up discussion of the other important, but less obvious, point, she pled the Fifth.

Now, sometimes that truly is the best (if not the only) option when the conduct is also potentially criminal conduct, but it almost always has damning consequences on the disciplinary side. The order of disbarment discusses in a couple of footnotes how taking the Fifth justified an adverse inference that the disciplinary allegations were essentially true. (These were relegated to footnotes because, by being uncooperative in certain aspects of the proceedings, Jefferson also was the subject of a sanctions order that essentially acted as a default judgment against her.)

Although much ink has been spilled in the past about what it means for disciplinary cases to be “quasi-criminal” in nature when it comes to Fifth Amendment rights, as a practical matter the “quasi” always does more work in that description than “criminal” does and lawyers who sit in judgment of other lawyers tend not to hesitate to draw negative conclusions about a lawyer who invokes the Fifth Amendment in proceedings about lawyer discipline.

And the final point, injected into the mix purely for the curiosity factor is that she apparently has also attempted to draw parallels to how she has been treated to events occurring on the national stage in a way that, I’m just guessing, probably will not carry the kind of weight she thinks.

That same ABA Journal article concludes with a quote from her – that apparently is made in a filing Jefferson has made to seek to stay and vacate the order of disbarment — “Akin to the Russian probe, this case is marred by abuse of prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of discretion and acts of complete denial of due process.”

Akin to the Russian probe … sigh.

Two Arkansas items involving rare procedural developments

As I attempt this week to get back into the saddle, two items – each relatively unusual and each involving Arkansas – grabbed my attention. One involves a judge and the other a lawyer.

Although Fridays are usually reserved for standard “follow ups,” the first item is in the nature of follow-up because I wrote previously about when this Arkansas judge was hit with disciplinary charges over his involvement in a protest against the death penalty around about the same time he was ruling on issues related to the death penalty in a case. The ABA Journal now has a story about the charges against the judge being dismissed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The reason for dismissal? The delay in the pursuit of the charges against him. The article notes that the charges were first filed against the judge back in April 2017. While both judges and lawyers alike subjected to disciplinary cases often feel like the process goes on longer than it should, and often times if you pay attention to the timelines in disciplinary opinions you see how extended the time frames often are between the opening of the case and the ultimate resolution, it is rare to see delay in disciplinary proceedings resulting in the outright dismissal of the charges. Twenty-six months would certainly be a long time if nothing at all was transpiring in the matter.

Of note, the article also mentions that the related ethics cases against six of seven justices on the Arkansas Supreme Court related to their treatment of the Arkansas judge in question (also discussed in my long-ago post) were also dismissed in November 2018 but the reasons for that dismissal are not mentioned.

On the lawyer side, a daily publication from the Tennessee Bar Association has started including disciplinary orders in its coverage of court opinions and, on Friday, it included the kind of order not seen every day on a number of fronts.

It is an order commencing a disciplinary case (or maybe not actually even truly doing that) against a Tennessee lawyer for having been convicted of a DUI offense in Arkansas. It’s unusual in a couple of respects in as much as historically there have not been many instances of any public discipline against Tennessee lawyers for criminal conduct involving drunk driving. While this order is certainly public in nature and can, itself, be something of a public censure for the lawyer involved, the order does not technically actually require the Board of Professional Responsibility in Tennessee to do anything about the situation.

The specific language of the order from the Tennessee Supreme Court reads:

This matter shall be referred to the Board for whatever action the Board may deem warranted.

Whether or not anything does come of it is unclear, the only provision that can be triggered by a DUI offense is RPC 8.4(b) and will turn on whether this particular criminal act is treated as one that “reflects adversely on the lawyer’s … fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” For what it may be worth, the lawyer in question does not have any past disciplinary history in terms of public discipline, but the Board’s website does reflect a pending petition against him that has been open since April 2018 so it would seem likely to be entirely unrelated to this offense which involved a traffic citation/arrest occurring in October 2018.

Fine lines and not so fine lines

About six weeks ago, The Law For Lawyers Today published a good post about a problem for lawyers that sometimes lurks around efforts to make demands in order to settle legal disputes for clients — the risk of being accused of extortionate conduct. You can read that post here.

That post was prompted by what was then the most recent high-profile instance of such a situation causing roiling public debate – whether the lawyer for The National Enquirer had crossed any lines into extortion with respect to his dealings with Jeff Bezos and what appeared to be threats to release sensitive photographs of Mr. Bezos unless Bezos would cause The Washington Post to back off an ongoing investigation of The National Enquirer. That post largely just helps with issue spotting and particularly emphasizes the need to know your state’s laws, general federal laws, and a reminder that you can disclose what you need to about a client’s matter in order to get advice about how to comply with your own ethical obligations.

I’m writing today because there is now an even higher-profile situation involving a lawyer attempting to teach all of the rest of us about what not to do when it comes to avoiding being accused of extortion. This instance involves the lawyer previously best known for representing Stormy Daniels and injecting himself into the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in a way that, frankly, unfairly-tarred women who were making highly-credible claims, Michael Avenatti.

Avenatti has been indicted in federal court in New York with charges involving some of the federal statutes referenced by the linked blog post over an alleged effort to extort some $20 million from Nike. You can read the 11-page indictment here.

Now there are certainly aspects of this topic that can be nuanced and properly viewed as the kind of slippery slope on which ethical guidance is extremely wise, but this does not seem to be one. This seems to be a lot more straightforward of a situation in which the line crossing is pretty clearly apparent in the narrative, if the facts alleged can be proven. (Admittedly, part of why it seems easy to reach that conclusion is not only the substance of the indictment but the fact that the lawyer in question was also separately charged that same week in California for what is alleged to have been efforts to defraud a client out of settlement funds. You can read that California criminal complaint here.)

But sticking to the substance of this indictment, these alleged facts are the problematic ones:

a. On or about March 19, 2019, in Manhattan, MICHAEL AVENATTI, the defendant, and CC-1 met with attorneys for NIKE, Inc. (“Nike”) and threatened to release damaging information regarding Nike if Nike did not agree to make multi-million dollar payments to AVENATTI and CC-1 and make an additional $1.5 million payment to an individual AVENATTI claimed to represent (“Client-1”).

b. On or about March 20, 2019, AVENATTI and CC-1 spoke by telephone with attorneys for Nike, during which AVENATTI stated, with respect to his demands for payment of millions of dollars, that if those demands were not met “I’ll go take ten billion dollars off your client’s market cap … I’m not fucking around.”

And then this piece offered later in the indictment as further background to explain:

8. … Specifically, AVENATTI threatened to hold a press conference on the eve of Nike’s quarterly earnings call and the start of the annual National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) tournament at which he would announce allegations of misconduct by employees of Nike. AVENATTI stated that he would refrain from holding the press conference and harming Nike only if Nike made a payment of $1.5 million to a client of AVENATTI’s in possession of information damaging to Nike, i.e. Client-1, and agreed to “retain” AVENATTI and CC-1 to conduct an “internal investigation” – an investigation that Nike did not request – for which AVENATTI and CC-1 demanded to be paid, at a minimum, between $15 and $25 million. Alternatively, and in lieu of such a retainer agreement, AVENATTI and CC-1 demanded a total payment of $22.5 million from Nike to resolve any claims Client-1 might have and additionally to buy AVENATTI’s silence.

Now, assuming that was how things actually played out, it is quite to formulate some helpful guideposts to a lawyer trying to figure out distinctions between legitimate settlement demands and extortion.

First, if you are a lawyer who actually has a client with a potential legal cause of action against a publicly-traded company that involves allegations that – once lodged in a publicly-filed court document – could result in negative publicity for Nike, you not only can, but might well be ethically obligated – to make a settlement demand for the client to try to avoid filing suit. (Depending on the nature of the claims and what your client might actually be able to recover in court, it is possible that you could even demand tens of millions of dollars in exchange for the client’s agreement not to sue.

Second, generally speaking, if what you are demanding money in exchange for is refraining from filing a lawsuit or pursuing some other legal proceeding that a client would have at least a colorable right to otherwise pursue, then you are pretty stable ground. If what you are demanding money to refrain from doing is holding a press conference. You should be worried that, perhaps, you are headed down the wrong path.

Third, if you are threatening a publicly-traded company and you decide to tie your settlement demand with a blatant threat that your action will directly damage their market valuation, you ought to again really ponder what you are doing. Particularly, if you are not threatening to file a suit for a client and, perhaps, unless you are threatening to file a suit for a client that would actually be a suit over whether or not the company has made appropriate public disclosures directly linked to how much its shares of stock now sell for.

Fourth, if part of your threat involves the party being threatened having to agree to let you represent them, you have definitely careened off the path of being engaged in legitimate efforts on behalf of a client to resolve a matter. Not only are you setting yourself up for the kind of fall that can result in jail time, you are also – at that point – likely violating your home state’s ethics rules on the solicitation of clients. Not to mention rules on conflicts of interest because – if you’ve decided to go down this path, you likely have also failed to realize that you are going to need a pretty good conflict waiver from the client you are claiming to represent in the first instance in order to have any chance of complying with your state’s version of RPC 1.7 (and, even then, you would still be likely to have a real problem on your hands regarding your state’s version of RPC 5.6.)

“Sleeping,” sleeping, and Cronic sleeping.

Three recent cases involving lawyers alleged to have been sleeping during trial (actually only two about sleeping lawyers, one about a lawyer pretending to sleep) leave me feeling like there has to be the germ of a worthwhile point to be made in there somewhere, but after drafting and redrafting this post in spare moments the last couple of days, I’m not sure any longer that had a point to be made but here we are, and I’m pot committed, so …

Those of us who primarily handle civil litigation tend to think that the stakes we deal with are high, and our clients certainly think so and expect us to treat their cases in that fashion.  Those responsibilities can end up keeping lawyers up at night.  Yet, in criminal cases, there are typically more significant repercussions for the participants that can flow from a lawyer’s mistake.  Jail time, capital punishment, etc.

Falling asleep during trial would be universally recognized as a pretty significant error for an attorney make.  Yet, pretending to be asleep during trial could, of course, be a strategic ploy.  The three cases decided in 2016 so far that got me thinking on this topic manage to cover the spectrum of the “slumbering lawyer” problem.

Back on Groundhog Day of this year, a prosecutor in Maine was chided by that state’s highest court for conduct described as “sophomoric, unprofessional and a poor reflection on the prosecutor’s office.”  Specifically, the conduct was pretending to sleep during the defense’s closing argument in a murder trial.  The court determined, however, that neither that conduct, nor other conduct by the prosecutor that the court found problematic, was enough to find prejudicial error to the defendant sufficient to justify reversing the homicide conviction in the case.  The stage craft of pretending to sleep could, as with other kinds of stagecraft, be viewed as amounting to a violation of RPC 4.4(a) on the part of the prosecutor.  Maine’s RPC 4.4(a), like the ABA Model Rule, prohibits a lawyer representing a client from “us[ing] means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person….”

Moving on from fake sleeping, but also back in February 2016, the 11th Circuit affirmed a lower district court’s ruling that a criminal defendant was not prejudiced by his slumbering counsel because the lawyer alleged to have fallen asleep only did so during a non-critical stage of the trial.  Specifically, defense counsel fell asleep while a recorded interview of an accomplice – spanning 71 pages in transcript length – was played to the jury.  The 11th Circuit agreed with the district court’s ruling that the standard for ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington and not U.S. v. Cronic was correct and that the trial court did not unreasonably apply Strickland.

The 11th Circuit opinion presents a very dry read including very little detail (even the lawyer involved never has his name mentioned).  From the opinion though, it appears the only actual proof mentioned of an instance of sleeping was the lawyer’s own statement made after cross-examining the witness and in response to the prosecutor asking for a break while defense counsel was cross-examining the law enforcement officer who had authenticated the recording:  “I need to take a break; I fell asleep a couple of times.”  Whether a sleeping lawyer is viewed as providing incompetent representation in violation of RPC 1.1, or acting in a manner not sufficiently diligent under RPC 1.3, or simply not in a position to effectively communicate with the client during trial under RPC 1.4, one would think that, if the lapse into unconsciousness could actually be proven, that the potential would exist for a finding of a disciplinary violation.  Yet, I would be very surprised if discipline ever came to pass.

In contrast, just last week, the Fourth Circuit reversed the conviction and thirty-year sentence of a defendant whose counsel also fell asleep during trial.  The Fourth Circuit case, as with the 11th Circuit case, involved a Section 2255 proceeding, but the difference in this situation being fairly described as one of degree and of the resulting legal standard to be applied.  Everyone who testified during the evidentiary hearing proceedings — except for the lawyer in question — testified to having witnessed the lawyer asleep at least once during trial.  The lawyer’s client after first alleging his lawyer fell asleep twice, eventually testified that his lawyer had slept for as many as 10 minutes a stretch some 10 to 20 times during the trial.  Counsel for other co-defendants each testified that despite now having a direct view of him at all times, they had noticed at least one bout of snoozing.  Perhaps, most damningly, a juror testified that the lawyer was asleep for at least a half an hour almost every day of trial and that the sleeping lawyer had been a topic of discussion during deliberations.  The lawyer, in question, in testimony not lost on the appellate court, said he couldn’t recall sleeping during the trial.

The Fourth Circuit, in what was a first impression matter for it, joined several other circuits in indicating that the Cronic standard — permitting the presumption of prejudice — and not Strickland applies when a lawyer is asleep for a substantial part of the trial.  The Fourth Circuit, however, also explained in a footnote that its ruling should not be treated as meaning only “the most egregious instances of slumber” will serve to trigger the need for the Cronic standard, indicating that being asleep for a critical part of the trial alone could also be sufficient.  Thus, the same fact pattern in the 11th Circuit matter might suffice in the Fourth Circuit if the nap had come not during the paying of an audiotape of a repetitive witness statement but during a critical time in the trial.

The same set of ethics rules mentioned above as to the one-time-napper are, of course, also implicated by repeated siestas during trial, but the odds of such a proceeding being pursued and discipline imposed inherently should be more likely as to the lawyer in the Fourth Circuit case.  Given the pretty broad conspiracy that would be necessary for the lawyer to prove his public explanation that this was a political dirty trick mounted against him because he had run for public office, such a case would likely be difficult to defend.

[P.S. While his other response, equating the allegations against him as an insult to the federal judge who presided over trial, the logistics of the courtroom described in the Fourth Circuit opinion that could explain why the trial court wouldn’t necessarily have seen the sleeping no matter how frequent and the Fourth Circuit’s own pretty strong rebuke of the district judge’s discounting of the witness testimony — “[T]he district court utterly failed to consider the likely possibility that each was saw [the lawyer] asleep or nodding off on different occasions.  Had the court done so, it would have reached the conclusion that [the lawyer] could have been asleep on at least six or seven different occasions.” — that approach isn’t likely as elegant a way of defending himself as it might seem at first glance.]