[Laaw]

Can't you just pay your defense attorney after the trial, guilty or not, whenever your assets are unfrozen?

Assets frozen during trial that aren't linked to any criminal activity can't be permanently confiscated, so your defense attorney can just settle up your bill at the end of the trial, when the assets are unfrozen. Maybe that's not how it works now, but if this happens, then defense firms will have to do their billing this way.

Not ideal and I don't see the point, but how is this a big deal?

[roel_v]

What lawyer will take on such a case, when it's unsure if you'll ever get paid, and if you do, it's years after the actual work is done? The first thing you do after you've hired a lawyer is pay his advance. No small firm can shoulder having to front cases that can drag on for years. It's not like you can tell your staff 'yeah we'll pay you in a few years'. And when the client is found guilty, the prosecutor will confiscate much of it. Good luck getting paid then.

[Laaw]

It's not unsure (like I said, assets unrelated to the crime can't ultimately be kept), and what else are they going to do? You can't seriously suggest all criminal defense attorneys are just going to give up on their professions.

The only thing extra you'd need as a criminal defense attorney is additional capital to start up your firm, and only for actual criminal case work. They have plenty of money, enough to wait for some time for a payday.

It's actually super common to wait years for payment in tons of industries, including law.

[roel_v]

The vast majority of criminals have assets lower than their total penalties / damages payable. You're basically asking lawyers to hope that their clients will have enough money left after they have paid their damages? And you're saying defense lawyers will do that because... what... otherwise they'd have to find clients in other fields of law?

"It's actually super common to wait years for payment in tons of industries, including law."

8| No it's not, except in law for cases on contingency basis. Which only make sense in cases where there might be a huge settlement or punitive damages. There are very few companies that can even afford to wait for their money for years.

"They have plenty of money, enough to wait for some time for a payday."

I'm not sure if you're just trolling here? You seem to have a conception of the economics of running small law offices (which is what the vast majority of criminal defense lawyers are) that is massively detached from reality.

[Laaw]

I'm not asking lawyers to do anything, I'm saying law firms who do criminal defense will not simply cease existing if this happens, which is what you're implying.

[vox_mollis]

I can only assume you're trolling, or an incredibly obsequious shill for federal power.

The only time an attorney will defend you without both a retainer and on-time payments is when your particular case is high enough profile to make pro-bono work worth it in terms of publicity. Your odds of this circumstance are less than one percent.

Federal prosecutors have extremely high conviction( or rather, plea )rates because they live and breathe by the extraordinarily asymmetrical power wielded over their victims. That you defend this asymmetry is sickening.

Ironically, with this case making the WaPo, she will likely find easy pro-bono work now. That vast majority of us? Probably not.

[Laaw]

Currently? Yes. If this case gets decided such that non-criminal assets can be frozen? No.

I'm explaining that law firms won't simply cease to exist if this case gets decided a certain way, which is what folks here seem to be implying. It's not an insurmountable hurdle.

Bill collection will adjust if it has to. Are you suggesting it won't?