Podcast: Family Law Talk with Lawyer Brook Fulks

November 3, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

www.texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

On my weekly podcast which I’m calling, “The Lawyer Show,” we had a good talk about family law and divorce cases a few weeks ago with a good friend of mine and an excellent lawyer Brook Fulks.  We talk a lot about the intersection of family law and criminal law as our cases do over-lap in domestic violence issues and issues about sexual and child abuse.

I hope you find the discussion interesting!

 

*Jeremy Rosenthal is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


What is the Difference Between a Flat Fee and a Retainer When Hiring a Lawyer?

October 10, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

jeremy@texasdefenselawyer.com

(972) 369-0577

This is a common question.

Remember a lawyer is selling their time.  Both a flat fee and retainer are different ways the lawyer sells that time.  These are actually topics of much debate in the legal community and are a bit more complex than meets the eye.

Abraham Lincoln said the legal fee is important because “It lets the client know he’s got a lawyer and the lawyer know he’s got a client.”

Important Reasons Which Go Into a Fee Amount 

A lawyer’s time is not an unlimited resource and some lawyers are justified in charging more for their time than others based on complexity of the matter and that lawyer’s experience.

Also, when a lawyer accepts your case – the lawyer is also limiting themselves because the lawyer now can’t sell time to (1) a different paying client because there are only so many hours in a day or (2) other potential clients he or she cannot legally represent because they would be conflicted from representing by virtue of their representation of you.

Flat Fees

A flat fee sounds a bit more self-explanatory than a retainer but there are still restrictions and issues with lawyers charging flat fees.

The advantage of the flat fee is it is clear-cut and caps the client’s potential financial output.  The disadvantage is the client could over-pay if the case is more resolved more quickly than anticipated.

Flat fees must still be justifiable at the end of the day.  Common sense still applies.  Where a client pays a lawyer gobs of money on day one and the client terminates representation on day two – the lawyer simply cannot justify keeping anything other than the amount he’s actually earned, if any.

Retainers

A retainer is money paid to the lawyer which the lawyer sets aside in a trust account.  The money legally remains the client’s property unless or until the lawyer earns it.  Once they earn it, they can then draw it from the account.

If the lawyer does not earn all of the money you deposited in trust then the client is entitled to a refund of the unused retainer.

The upside of a retainer is obvious.  The downside of a retainer is once the retainer has been expended, it typically needs to be refilled.

I compare a retainer to a tank of gas.  Sometimes it takes a half a tank to get to the destination but sometimes it could take 3 tanks.

Is A Flat Fee Better or is a Retainer Better?

It depends on the case in my mind.  You don’t want your lawyer to be paid too much and believe it or not — you really don’t want them to be paid to little either.

In a criminal defense practice there are many cases we handle very routinely where our time is predictable and as the lawyer, we’re willing to take the risk on a flat fee because we know from experience the amount of time we’ll be spending on a certain case falls in within an acceptable range.  Those tend to be misdemeanors like DWI, domestic assault, or theft cases to name a few.

Retainers are a flexible way to handle cases where our time output will be a bit more difficult to predict.  Those would typically be cases like sexual assault, felony drug possession, or white collar charges such as embezzlement or money laundering.  A retainer also assists when we need to pay other client expenses such as investigators or expert witnesses which we’ll need to involve from time to time depending on the case.

The retainer, then, is a good way of making sure the fee is just right on more complex cases where a flat fee may just be far too high or far too low.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is Designated as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.


Your Right to a Speedy Trial – and The Effect of the COVID Pandemic

October 8, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

jeremy@texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

This could probably be a full blown law review article but I’ll stick to good blogging etiquette – long enough to cover the basics and short enough to keep interest.

These days I sound like a broken record with my clients.  “We’re not able to have your jury trial yet.  We need to reset your case again.  Sorry.”

Many of my clients don’t want a speedy trial and many are happy to put off their prosecution indefinitely.  Everyone is different and their circumstances are different so I can see it both ways.  The Constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial for no other reason that it takes away a possible prosecutorial ploy to ruin someone’s life by just maintaining a cloud of suspicion over a person without ever having to prove their case.

I find courts and prosecutors still struggle with their own understanding of what a speedy trial is or isn’t.  Unfortunately my experience is Courts and prosecutors generally don’t take speedy trial issues very seriously and only see it as an arbitrary escape hatch for a criminal to avoid responsibility.  Our challenge is to show the Court why the Constitution means what it says and says what it means about speedy trials in every case.

How Speedy Trial Works under the Law

The cornerstone case for speedy trial for both State and Federal purposes is called Barker v. Wingo.  That case weighs four separate factors in determining whether there has been a violation of someone’s rights to a speedy trial.

The Barker v. Wingo Factors (Quickly)

The Court Weighs:

  1.  The length of the delay;
  2.  The reason for the delay;
  3.  The time and manner in which Defendant asserted their right;
  4.  The degree of prejudice Defendant has suffered because of the delay.

Prejudice suffered can be anywhere from the natural stress and anxiety which comes from being criminally prosecuted to things which more directly impact the case such as witnesses being more difficult to find or memories about an event fading.

Another big factor is the reason for the delay.  Courts typically try and calculate who is at fault for how much of the delay.  In Barker v. Wingo, the accused was a co-defendant in a homicide.  The prosecution wanted to convict the other person first so they sought 13 or 14 continuances on Barker’s case for strategy reasons.

COVID Delays

We won’t know how the Courts will construe speedy trial delays under Barker for the purposes of the pandemic.  I don’t think they can blame the defense, obviously, for the delay – but the question is whether the Courts will attribute the delays to the government because of of public safety?  Could courts turn around and try to blame Defendant for asserting rights such as the right to confront witnesses in person – or not having a judge trial instead of a jury trial?  It’s hard to know.

Stay Tuned

In 2021 and almost certainly beyond – we are looking to have a major backlog of court cases which will need to be resolved.  Courts have often been dismissive of speedy trial issues but the issue may have a resurgence.

What Lawyers Should be Doing Now

There is really no reason a lawyer shouldn’t file a speedy trial demand in each of their cases set for trial during the pandemic.  Those speedy trial demands can always be waived, but it helps establish the third prong – that the defense is trying to assert their right early in the process.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 


How COVID Broke the Criminal Courts – Blog 1 (No Jury Trials)

August 5, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Whether we like it or not the Coronavirus pandemic has been a transformational event – and its impact on the Courts and criminal law practice is no exception.  Some of it will be temporary and some of the transformation will be here to stay.

broken-bulb

Big Picture View of the Criminal Court System

Think of our court system as a pipeline with water going through it.  Cases go in on one end, and are channelled in certain directions to be resolved either by plea, dismissal or trial.  One of the Courts’ central roles is to simply move the cases through the system.

Certainly, the Courts have vital roles in the outcome – but as I explain to clients frequently – the Courtroom has two tables, one Judge and one witness stand.  They can’t weigh in on all 2,500 cases they’re assigned at one time.

The Role of the Jury Trial in the Process

Trial would be like the end of the water line which would typically spit the unused water out and be done with it.  It is the mechanism which closes cases the parties can’t resolve on their own.

But another crucial aspect of a Jury trial is this — parties typically also want to avoid them.  They’re uncertain.  They can be expensive for someone charged with a crime.  They can inflict real pain on a person standing trial or a witness in the trial.  Prosecutors won’t admit this – but they get paid the same whether they’re sitting at their desk or trying a case and many of them don’t want to put in the effort of a trial.  So trials also serve the critical function of pressuring criminal defendant and the prosecutor to come to some sort of agreement short of a trial.

Also there are some cases which simply have to be tried in the criminal world.  Take a Continuous Sexual Abuse of a child case where the Defendant serves 25-years to life with no parole if convicted.  If the Defendant is over 50 years old – there is simply very little reason for them to plead guilty in any event.

Pandemics and Jury Trials Don’t Mix

We can’t have typical jury trials in a pandemic.  It’s not safe and there is really no substitute.  Jury trials via zoom or other platform almost certainly violate rights to face your accusers in open court.  The jury system was also predicated on an assumption the jury can get to the truth by watching witnesses in person.

The System is Temporarily Out of Service

Not only is the mechanism we use to resolve cases not working during the pandemic — more importantly parties aren’t feeling pressured to resolve cases.

Prosecutors are currently making plea offers based on what they think a fair outcome would be for a case based on what they’ve seen as fair results in the past.  But they ignore the Defense has very little incentive — in many circumstances — in pleading guilty.

A Defendant on bond (and the vast majority are) doesn’t have to worry about upsetting a probation officer and going back to jail on a misdemeanor case.  On a felony case where the State thinks 8 years of prison is a fair offer — a defendant on bond is rarely going to sign up for that where the alternative is living a relatively normal life for another year.

Prosecutors and criminal defendants aren’t on the same wavelength with regards to resolving cases and the reason is the pressure-mechanism isn’t working.

Why Don’t Judges Just Try to do Jury Trials Anyway?

Judges could try to force the issue – but they fear making the matter worse by utilizing resources to try a case via Zoom only to have the Court of Appeals making them re-do the trial when the pandemic is over.

The Fix

The system will get back to normal once cases begin going back to jury trials.  When that will be is another issues.  But when jury trials do begin to crank up again — just like a water-pipeline with built-up pressure — you can expect excess pressure there too.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Criminal Law.  He is Currently Recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 


Zoom Jury Trials — “It’s Good Enough” Lowers the Standard in Our Courtrooms

May 19, 2020

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Collin County is kicking around the idea of jury trials via Zoom or some other similar platform.  They just tried a virtual jury trial – sort of.  It was a “summary jury trial” which is a practice run typically for wealthier litigants.  The fake jury comes back and tells the parties what they think the outcome should be — and the parties then consider settling.

***What did you say?  Sorry.  Go ahead.***

And not to pick on Zoom.  There are other similar platforms too, but I’ll just collectively refer to them here as Zoom.  Sorry.

Judges organizing and developing the idea get A’s for ingenuity, effort, and passion for their jobs.

But it’s still a terrible idea.  Remember, a jury trial is often the most important day in one or more person’s entire life.  Here are some of the biggest reasons I can think of:

Screen Shot 2020-05-19 at 9.14.28 AM

  1.  Over Simplification of Human Communication

Human communication is complex, intricate and amazingly subtle.

I’ve interviewed thousands of potential jurors  — and I have cross examined hundreds of witnesses.  Many, many jurors cannot give my client a fair trial but would still swear they could.  Many, many witnesses want to make sure I lose and evade questions until they are pinned into answering.  A critical part of my job in the courtroom is to hone in on the most minor of cues from a juror or witness.   An eye dart.  A smirk.  Posture.  Hand position.  Voice tone or inflection… and on and on an on.

***Sorry.  Lost you for a second.***

Zoom and other similar platforms are — at least for now — tone deaf.  These subtleties are either flattened, lost, or are drowned out in 20-people being crammed onto an 18-inch monitor.

And there is something to be said about accountability of the jurors too.  Jurors deliberate knowing they will have to go back into the courtroom and look me, my client, the prosecutor and in many cases a victim in the eye.  Jurors who share less of an emotional stake in the outcome will give the parties less of their focus and attention.

2.  Too Much is At Stake

For criminal defendants decades may hang in the balance not to mention the tidal wave which hits their families and loved ones which can be practical, financial and certainly emotional.  For victims it is their opportunity to be heard and have the jury see how real and fresh their pain truly is.

Zoom is probably fine for quick interactions and brief hearings.  It’s a great tool to visit with clients both incarcerated and free on bond.  It’s probably fine for motions practice with a Judge, lawyers, and possibly other witnesses during routine hearings too.

But any one of us would feel cheated and angry if we or our loved ones were sitting in jail after a trial where we couldn’t even see the jurors or our accusers in person.  Any victim whose defendant is acquitted will feel the same way too.

***Wait, who is talking?  Sorry!***

This is a jury trial — not a teamwork meeting or happy hour.  Can you imagine deciding something as critical and complex as a sexual assault shaping the lives of countless people without some sort of personal interaction?

3.  If Anyone Cares — It Violates a Bunch of Rights

This is a blog — not an amicus brief or a law review article.  So I apologize if I keep this quick and direct.

***Look at that guy’s cat!  He will knock down that picture on the wall***

Let’s start with the right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment.  Then we’ll go to Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.  Then let’s talk about the umpteen-million opinions you’ll see about the jurors ability to judge witnesses based on x, y, and z.  Or maybe we just throw those all out because we need to get our docket moving?!?

Make no mistake — Judges are asking the specific question, “Can I get away with this without getting reversed?”  My message to them — be my guest but don’t complain about trying the case when it comes back on appeal.

Bottom Line

Is Zoom “good enough?”  Perhaps in some ways and for some things.  People can talk, listen and see videos and exhibits.  But until the platform is as good as the Jedi Counsel meeting where Yoda can sit in his chair remotely from Kashyyyk and interact – it won’t be the same.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and is designated as a Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.