Query: Should there be requirements that a lawyer demonstrate proficiency in an area before handling a case?
A doctor who passes her medical boards on Tuesday cannot perform open heart surgery on Wednesday. She can't even lawfully remove an appendix.
Yet a lawyer who is sworn in on Monday can pick a jury in a murder case on Tuesday. The Florida legislature has set proficiency requirements only for death penalty cases.
Most people who practice criminal defense usually come from the PD or state attorney's office, where they receive training. But as more lawyers enter the marketplace, less have the training necessary to handle a complex case.
What to do?
Does a Judge have an obligation at any point to stop a deficient defense? We have seen (notorious) situations arise (rarely) where judges have been caught assisting the prosecution. This of course is both an outrage and a violation of due process of law. But what should a Judge do when an incompetent defense attorney is bungling their way through a trial?
In other matters, we have been pondering the statements made by the president's aide that "microwaves can be turned into cameras."
Startling information. At the moment, this is the only solution we can think of:
Another beautiful spring Miami weekend.
From Occupied America, Fight the Power!
No a Judge should not. They are there to call balls and strikes.
ReplyDeleteCut 3rd year of law school. Add two years of practical internship rotations (PD, SAO, certified "teaching" law firms or corporations where students can get civil experience). Make it the equivalent of medical school.
ReplyDeleteRight now FIU law school has set up a horribly ill-advised policy of encouraging their students to go out on their own straight out of law school. They are setting untrained and incompetent lawyers (1st year lawyers coming from Harvard and Yale are incompetent too) lose on the public. This is irresponsible. The answer is to revamp law school training so that lawyers come out of law school with the skills needed to actually represent clients.
I think the answer is to replace BAILIFFS. They should be replaced with FIRE MARSHALLS.
ReplyDeleteNo real need. Just put fire sprinklers in certain courtrooms??
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself: What would Judge Alphonso Sepe do?
ReplyDeleteI'm just wondering why this stunt was stupid?
ReplyDeleteThat old lawyer trick where the defense attorney tells the jury that his client is innocent and in a moment his partner will be bringing the real murderer through the door- and then as the jurors glance at the door the lawyer says "If you looked at the door- that is reasonable doubt."
If he arranged to have his pants spontaneously combust, and then put the fire out, and then said "if you thought my pants actually caught on fire for no reason, then that is reasonable doubt."
I think that is what this kid was going for.
I promise you he was not going for that. Talk to him for a minute and you will know something is off.
Delete2 years of law school followed by a year of internship or apprenticeship, whatever you call it, should do the trick.
ReplyDeleteNo, 3 years law school and 2 years as a intern
ReplyDeleteSaw Lurvey get attacked my nok in the hall after trial today. Hope he is ok.
ReplyDeleteNot a critique, just a question. Is this blog going to cover the 101 pager on Rundle deciding not to bring charges for the alleged shower burning? I'm interested in your take.
ReplyDeleteShall we refer to the incident as Hantzman vs.the pantsman?
ReplyDeleteOr shall it forever remain Lawyer, lawyer, pants on fire?