The LAW says he can "delegate" the representation.
It does not say he can compel someone to represent someone involuntarily.
He could hire the governor and pay him to represent someone though.
The LAW says he can "delegate" the representation.
Delegate and contract are synonymous in this situation.
Delegate and contract are synonymous in this situation.
The governor isn't rejecting a contract since no particular price was named. He's rejecting defending someone wholesale irrespective of any price that could theoretically be agreed upon.
The governor isn't rejecting a contract since no particular price was named. He's rejecting defending someone wholesale irrespective of any price that could theoretically be agreed upon.
Delegating cases to someone who you have not secured an agreement from to take them sure sounds like gross incompetence to me.
This will be an interesting argument and may actually need to go back to what the legislatures were intending when writing the law. They didn't use compel, they chose delegate which has a different meaning.
Delegate and contract are synonymous in this situation.
The governor isn't rejecting a contract since no particular price was named. He's rejecting defending someone wholesale irrespective of any price that could theoretically be agreed upon.
Delegating cases to someone who you have not secured an agreement from to take them sure sounds like gross incompetence to me.
Perhaps you should spend less time sleeping and more time getting your moral priorities in order.
They can't use compel. There's a constitutional proscription against involuntary servitude, you know?
- - - Updated - - -
Delegate and contract are synonymous in this situation.
The governor isn't rejecting a contract since no particular price was named. He's rejecting defending someone wholesale irrespective of any price that could theoretically be agreed upon.
He'd be declining the public defender's offer to represent. Which he, and all the other attorneys in Missouri, has a right to do.
Perhaps you should spend less time sleeping and more time getting your moral priorities in order.
Not quite. Was the statue written to force anyone on the bar to be a public defender or was it allowed for the public defender to get help so they could find anyone that has passed the bar that wants to help to be a defender?
They can't use compel. There's a constitutional proscription against involuntary servitude, you know?
- - - Updated - - -
Delegate and contract are synonymous in this situation.
The governor isn't rejecting a contract since no particular price was named. He's rejecting defending someone wholesale irrespective of any price that could theoretically be agreed upon.
He'd be declining the public defender's offer to represent. Which he, and all the other attorneys in Missouri, has a right to do.
It wasn't an offer, it was a delegation.
No I was talking about dismal's calling the director grossly incompetent as opposed to the governor grossly neglectful. That's a bad moral judgment call to focus on a theoretical mistake (or maybe just noisemaking) instead of the governors' actions.
It doesn't say the private lawyer can be compelled to serve. So I suppose he can just decline. Yawn.
It doesn't say the private lawyer can be compelled to serve. So I suppose he can just decline. Yawn.
I don't know what the rules of professional conduct in Missouri are, but under the ABA Model Rules, one is not engaging in the private practice of law if they are a government attorney, in-house counsel for a business, doing pro-bono work for the poor, or if they're a judge. So it appears that he is not engaged in the private practice of law, but is he still considered a publicly employed attorney? Under the State of Missouri, are there other statutes that would contradict the one quoted? What's the case history? What's the status of the defendant--how long has his case been pending?
The letter is great, and because it was written by a judge, it would seem to have some credibility behind it. I suspect he/she had more than one intern/assistant/whomever, go to town on the research for it, and it seems likely that the judge would have done their own homework on the matter as well.
The lawyerly answer: it depends.
Delegating something to someone simply means passing on authority or responsibility to do that thing to them. It does not mean the person has to accept that authority/responsibility.
KeepTalking said:As has been noted, the word "compel" would be used if the person were legally bound to accept the authority/responsibility, and that would be tantamount to involuntary servitude in this situation.
KeepTalking said:The only way I see that Nixon would be required to do this is if the State BAR has a provision that compels their attornies to accept such delegation. I doubt, however, that such a provision exists.
A lawyer can quit being a lawyer, i.e. quit the bar, no?
KeepTalking said:As has been noted, the word "compel" would be used if the person were legally bound to accept the authority/responsibility, and that would be tantamount to involuntary servitude in this situation.
Okay, but judges can appoint lawyers to defend someone based on the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Bill of Rights as you see in Miranda Rights: "...if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you..."
KeepTalking said:The only way I see that Nixon would be required to do this is if the State BAR has a provision that compels their attornies to accept such delegation. I doubt, however, that such a provision exists.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/Cle...d2ef1fa039abe9bc86256ca6005211dc?OpenDocument
RULE 4-6.2: ACCEPTING APPOINTMENTS
A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause...
But what can the court do if they don't have enough people and every private attorney turns it down? Does the defendant have a right to an attorney or not? Whose rights trump whose? The defendant's right to an attorney or an attorney's right to turn down the court?KeepTalking said:As has been noted, the word "compel" would be used if the person were legally bound to accept the authority/responsibility, and that would be tantamount to involuntary servitude in this situation.
Okay, but judges can appoint lawyers to defend someone based on the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Bill of Rights as you see in Miranda Rights: "...if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you..."
Appointing a lawyer to defend someone who cannot afford an attorney speaks more to the defendant being obligated to accept the appointed attorney, and not that any random attorney can be compelled to defend that person. Even in that case, I think the defendant has some leeway if they feel they are not being properly represented.
What they should do is simply go to court and say:
"Due to inadequate funding we are not capable of representing this defendant. As the state has effectively kept him from his right to an attorney all charges must be dismissed."
...and that would accomplish nothing as the charges would never be dropped.
This, on the other hand, is a brilliant stunt that is a very public and direct attack on the imbecile who orchestrated the problem, and as a result has gained a lot of attention.
But what can the court do if they don't have enough people and every private attorney turns it down? Does the defendant have a right to an attorney or not? Whose rights trump whose? The defendant's right to an attorney or an attorney's right to turn down the court?KeepTalking said:As has been noted, the word "compel" would be used if the person were legally bound to accept the authority/responsibility, and that would be tantamount to involuntary servitude in this situation.
Okay, but judges can appoint lawyers to defend someone based on the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Bill of Rights as you see in Miranda Rights: "...if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you..."
Appointing a lawyer to defend someone who cannot afford an attorney speaks more to the defendant being obligated to accept the appointed attorney, and not that any random attorney can be compelled to defend that person. Even in that case, I think the defendant has some leeway if they feel they are not being properly represented.
This isn't a trick question, I simply want to know.
But what can the court do if they don't have enough people and every private attorney turns it down? Does the defendant have a right to an attorney or not? Whose rights trump whose? The defendant's right to an attorney or an attorney's right to turn down the court?
This isn't a trick question, I simply want to know.
I don't know what the rules of professional conduct in Missouri are, but under the ABA Model Rules, one is not engaging in the private practice of law if they are a government attorney, in-house counsel for a business, doing pro-bono work for the poor, or if they're a judge. So it appears that he is not engaged in the private practice of law, but is he still considered a publicly employed attorney? Under the State of Missouri, are there other statutes that would contradict the one quoted? What's the case history? What's the status of the defendant--how long has his case been pending?
The letter is great, and because it was written by a judge, it would seem to have some credibility behind it. I suspect he/she had more than one intern/assistant/whomever, go to town on the research for it, and it seems likely that the judge would have done their own homework on the matter as well.
The lawyerly answer: it depends.
I read the statute. It contains not even the slightest hint that the director can compel private attorneys to provide this service. I can't imagine why someone would assume it did. When it doesn't.
The statute authorizes the director to hire private attorneys. It authorizes the director to delegate cases to private attorneys.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/60000000421.HTML