[bayesianhorse]

Maybe the public defender system may benefit, because when even wealthy or middle-class defendants can't pay for their lawyers, more lawyers are forced to either become public defenders or work on similar arguments, making financial means of defendants less of a factor in choosing their clients.

[adventured]

What benefit is a stronger public defender if your government can steal your property without any requirement of proof of guilt? That automatically destroys the property rights system, the knock-on effects will be truly massive. And then it leaves you without any means for defense other than to put your fate in the hands of the government. Orwell would certainly approve.

I'm baffled that some people here are arguing that this could turn out to be a good thing, and are applauding giving the government this kind of terrifying power. I can't believe it's not immediately grasped how it'll then be used to take 27 other steps, no different than how programs like the Patriot Act have been, and every other vast over-reach of power has been throughout recorded history.

This is the perfect setup to a totalitarian state. We were already too far down that road, if they kill the sixth amendment then kiss the remaining liberty goodbye, it'll all be rapidly eroded via the government using its power to (comically easily) control public defenders. We've already gotten to see how these systems work, with a century of failed fascist and communist regimes.

[Natsu]

This isn't about civil asset forfeiture or drugs at all. I can sympathize with requiring that you be found guilty of something before taking all your stuff, but this isn't even about that. And even if it were, a public defender's office that could take on that kind of case to help you get your money back when you're innocent would help stop abuse of it.

What this case is actually about is someone who allegedly defrauded Medicare. The state froze their assets so they could get back the stolen money after trial (it's frozen, not forfeit, so they have to find him guilty).

His lawyer (who is not a public defender, incidentally) argues that he had a lot of assets before the alleged fraud. But the response to that is that is that it's not really fair to let someone defraud Medicare and then declare their assets not subject to a freeze because they've spent all the stolen money. All that really does is incentivize thieves to spend the stolen money first and what good does that rule do? If you have $5,000, steal another $5,000, and then spend $5,000, why can't the state freeze your $5,000 whether you spent the stolen or non-stolen money? Is it really fair to let you hire a high-price lawyer that others could only dream of when the bulk of your funds come from fraud? Why does it matter which money they spent first?

You can find all this and more in the transcript of the oral argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri...

[vinceguidry]

While true, this argument falls flat when you realize the limitations. If I made millions legally, then why in the world would I decide to start making all subsequent money illegally? Wouldn't it be much better to just keep milking my legal cash cow?

The government doesn't seem to be limiting their purview to just the money that was supposedly illicitly gained. They're freezing all moneys that could conceivable by subject to a fine. It's not just the $5000, but everything. That's extremely problematic from a rights standpoint.

[Natsu]

> If I made millions legally, then why in the world would I decide to start making all subsequent money illegally?

I would suggest you pose that question to this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

> They're freezing all moneys that could conceivable by subject to a fine. It's not just the $5000, but everything. That's extremely problematic from a rights standpoint.

From what I read, it's only freezing what's necessary to pay them back. That's not a public defender defending him in the oral arguments. So this is only problematic as far as your Sixth Amendment right to counsel goes as long as you allow the public defenders to be ineffective and expect people to be able to get better lawyers with more money, leaving those with less money less able to defend their legal rights.

Now it's fair to say that the government seizing money in other contexts, like civil asset forfeiture, is problematic. It's just not something this case is about.

[vinceguidry]

Are we reading about the same case?

> charges of operating a complicated scheme that allegedly defrauded Medicare of upwards of $40 million.

> federal government moved to freeze not only her “tainted” assets, meaning those assets that can be arguably traced back to the alleged underlying crime; but the federal government also moved to freeze Luis’ undisputedly legitimate assets, which amount to some $15 million that cannot be connected in any way to any alleged criminal activity.

> Luis v. United States raises significant questions about both the scope of the Sixth Amendment and the reach of federal asset forfeiture law.

> According to the federal government, because all of Luis’ assets could be subject to forfeiture if she is ultimately convicted, federal prosecutors should not be stopped from freezing all of her “forfeitable” assets before she goes on trial.

[Natsu]

Yes, we are. The thing is that they've got to freeze $40M+ which probably is everything after what he spent.

The reason for this is that money is fungible. I can choose to spend from stolen assets or my original assets. Thus, it makes no sense to think of some as "tainted" and other funds as "untainted" which is something you will also see the justices question in oral argument. There's no sense in rewarding someone for spending the stolen money first, which is the only thing the rule being proposed would accomplish.

That's the same reason they've repeatedly rejected the idea, as also is mentioned repeatedly in oral argument by both the liberal (Kagan) and conservative members of the Supreme Court.

[beagle3]

First, for this to even remotely have a chance, it must mean that every wealthy defendant must have their asset frozen, which isn't under consideration (or going to happen, and I think it is for the best that it wouldn't).

And even if it would - wealthy defendants are likely to have "attorney fund pacts" - I'll fund your lawyer if your assets are frozen, if you'll fund mine. Or some more general "asset freeze lawyer insurance" practice will arise.

The problem is that the wealthy in the US do not believe that they play by the same rules, nor do they believe they should play by the same rules.

[seanmcdirmid]

Wealthy defendants usually have wealthy parents, grandparents, siblings...

[omonra]

Or fewer people will want to become lawyers.

Really thought this one through, I see :)

[vidarh]

In the UK, lawyers have for a long time earned on average substantially below the average salary, and that is driven up by the top end London firms (where partners can earn millions).

The reality is that in many countries most lawyers don't earn very much, because they're not top end litigators or counsel to large companies, but spend most of their time writing "low value" documents or letters for clients with little money.

This doesn't seemed to have caused the supply of people wanting to study law to dry up.

[runevault]

I don't understand why people continue to go into law in the numbers they do. Everything I've seen over the last few years indicates the number of law jobs being created/opening up due to retirement is far lower than the number of people passing the bar every year. Considering how much it costs to go through law school, it seems like an insane gamble unless you already have ins at a significant law firm.

[vidarh]

See my other comment regarding the UK, where serving lawyers actually earn less than the national average. So yes, it's a bit puzzling. On the other hand, a law degree is a bit of a "I don't know what I'm going to do but this will at least give me a firm backing" type of degree.

You can take a law degree and go into any number of professions such as jobs in the police, human resources, journalism, areas of finance, all kinds of compliance roles and oversight or strategic positions in-house in companies etc. Basically you can treat being a qualified lawyer as having proven that you're able to work hard, learn fast and pay excellent attention to detail, which is often just as valuable or more as domain specific skills.

E.g. my ex recently went from one of the Magic Circle firms as a 2 year post qualification lawyer (UK system for solicitors - for barristers (litigators) it's slightly different - == 3 year law degree, 2 years training contract and passing the legal practice course; the latter can be done as part of/during training, especially if you get a contract with a top firm) to a director-level human resources position at a major bank on the basis of being a qualified solicitor with some lower level HR experience years ago, before her degree. Her legal training is by far the most relevant to the role vs. HR experience, given all the regulatory/compliance issues and general legal issues an investment banks HR department has to deal with.

But certainly, going into law to work in a law-firm is far from lucrative for most people.

(not that the overall cost is much lower in the UK,though: the law degree is a first degree, and costs the same as any typical first degree, and if you get a training contract the training is paid and many firms will then cover the cost of the legal practice course as well; even if you don't get a training contract before your LPC, it's possible to do the LPC for about GBP 5k I think)

[nullc]

Are you making an assumption that these seized assets are not still counted against the accused in their access to the public defender system?

(I don't know-- but I think it is probably not safe to assume.)

[gohrt]

how does lawyers becoming public defenders help anything? We don't have a shortage of PD lawyers, we have a shortage of funding to pay them to serve clients.