The first rule of lawyering - do no harm to your client
The coverage of Cameron Willingham continues to new issues daily. It's hard to choose what to comment on - I could easily spend the whole day setting out my thoughts (not to mention answering questions from reporters. BTW if any reporters are reading this, my secretary won't give you any inside information, or my "cell phone number - does that ever work) The decision was made easy by Todd's trial attorney going on CNN - sounding more like a prosecutor than a defense lawyer.
Mark Bennett addressed the in interview in his usual insightful manner, and tried to answer the question of whether he violated the bar's ethics rules. I don't have an answer for that, but I am sure that his conduct is not what people expect from their lawyers - and they shouldn't expect. You don't expect your lawyer to bad mouth you, even if you didn't get along with them. Although I don't think its in the rules, as a lawyer you ought to have some duty to not damage your client. At the very least, Mr. Martin is damaging Todd's reputation, and his ability to obtain some relief in through the forensic commission. The fact that he aligning himself with Gov. Perry ought to tell you something.
The hippocratic oath for doctors says to "never do harm" to thier patients. As far as I know lawyers don't have similar oath - but certainly its implied. Clients expect their lawyers to protect them - why else would you hire a lawyer. Unfortunately, lawyers put their own interests above those of their clients.
You might say you have no duty to your client after they die. To me, that's a cop out. I consider Todd my client. and will do whatever can to clear his name. I have the same feeling for any client. I've represented some pretty despicable people, and I would never bad mouth them in public. I listened to mother when she said if you can't something good about someone, don't say anything.
Scott Greenfield asked why he would make those statements. He can't answer that question, and I don't think anyone can come up with a logical explanation. No one is suggesting he is why his client was convicted and executed. We all didn't know then what we know now about arson science. It would be easy enough to say I did the best I could - if I had the reports that are out now, the result may have been different. No one could argue with that position.
In my opinion he has created questions about his representation. It's one thing to think your client is guilty - in truth, most of them are. They still has the burden to prove guilt. Mr. Martin's comments appear to show more - a dislike, maybe even hatred of his client. Nobody says you have to like your clients; but it shouldn't affect your representation. You have to wonder now if his feelings effected his representation. He's basically become more of an advocate for the prosecution than the State.
Jeff Gamso had one of the more insightful insights - I wish I could have said it as well:
And then there's the matter of going on the air to declare his client guilty. Why in the world would he do that? To garner business? Unlikely. That's not the way you attract clients. For the glory of national television? Some people just can't resist. Whatever the reason, he was wrong. Whatever he was thinking, he wasn't thinking enough. That duty of loyalty. That obligation not to disadvantage. That lack of judgment. That putting his own interests before his client's.
He's right that you don't need to believe your client innocent to provide a stellar defense. As I said, innocence is, ultimately, irrelevant to the work we do. Proclamations of guilt are something else.
It really is inexcusable. Really. Inexcusable.
I don't know if Mr. Martin is still practicing law; I certainly hope he's not practicing criminal law. If I were potential client, I would certainly question how dedicated he was going to be.
___________________
Thanks for Jeff Gamso for pointing me to Rants of Public Defender - which also has a great comment on Mr. Martin.
