We have a new problem, at least new to us, with some of our more creative inmates. I do not know who the jailhouse lawyer was who started this, but it has become a real problem. The Court appoints them an attorney, they decide they either don't like the offer or don't want to go to trial so they file a grievance against their court-appointed attorney. The Court appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw because of a conflict and the Court grants the motion and appoints another attorney. Then they still don't like the offer or they are set for trial again, so again they file a grievance against the attorney, etc. etc. All of the grievances have apparently been summarily dismissed, but we have one guy who just pulled this trick for the third time and he is set for trial on the 25th of April, his third jury setting.

We went to trial a couple of weeks ago on a guy who was on his third attorney and threatened to file a grievance, but had not done so at the time of his trial, so we were actually able to go to trial, but this is getting ridiculous. Has anyone ever had this problem before and if so, what if anything is the solution?

Sign me as frustrated in Caldwell.

I have had this problem recently with a woman who was charged with a felony. She got an appointed attorney, then fired him and hired her own lawyer. Then she fired him and grieved him just before trial, and stated she could no longer afford an attorney so the court appointed her one (this woman, BTW, was out on bond, which will make you tear your hair when you hear the rest). She grieved her court appointed lawyer (the same one who was initially appointed) prior to trial and got a new one appointed. She grieved her next attorney and then the third attorney withdrew for "conflicts" before she had been representing the woman for more than a week. The final attorney (who apparently was able to convince the crazy woman that he would actually pursue the 2nd Amendment defense she wanted to put forward on her Aggravated Assault case) actually tried the case, lost, and then got grieved for it. She then absconded before her punishment hearing to Florida and has an extradition pending right now to get brought back here to finally be punished (but she has no lawyer now, since the latest grievance resulted in the attorney withdrawing from the case).

If this has demonstrated anything to you, it should be that I have no idea how to handle the problem you are facinc.

The relationship between the appointed attorney and his client need not be "meaningful". Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1. And I am not certain the mere filing of a baseless complaint with the bar means continued representation by the attorney "reasonably appears to be or become adversely limited by the lawyer's own interests". Tex.Discip.R. 1.06 (b)(2). But, if the court feels this means another attorney must be appointed, then the merry-go-round will continue to turn until the court stops it. Maybe this tactic should be viewed as a waiver of the right to counsel, but I do not see much is gained even if that were true.

Sorry to hear that someone could top my situation. Hey, on another note, what is the deal with the Florida-Texas criminal connection? Is it a Bush thing? Are we sending them some of ours? We seem to have a plethora of ex-cons from Florida coming to Texas and committing felonies. We have had to extradite at least three Floridians back on felony cases.

Anyway, the Court is putting on a strong face for the defendants and telling them that no more attorneys will be appointed and unless they hire one prior to the trial date that they will be going it alone, but actually telling us that they will have to go ahead and appoint one when push comes to shove on the trial date. They don't seem to have any solutions for us either. Neither the Court, nor the attorneys seem to want to test the waters on the bogus grievance = no real conflict issue.

One of our judges told a defendant that when he got his third attorney that it was the end of the line and that he was not going to get another attorney. Then just before trial, the defendant tried to claim that he would not go to trial with the third attorney and the Court advised him that he was set and was going to trial. That actually stuck and he went to trial with that attorney and after he got convicted and got his 15 years from the jury, then he started complaining about his attorney again. The guy delivered dope on video with the cops watching from an adjacent motel room and a second time on audio and in the same car with an undercover cop, but his attorney is at fault.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and if I get a good idea or someone gives me a solution, I will pass it on.

I think there is a secret conduit/tunnel that is only known to convicted felons and their relatives (and their ilk, of course), operating under the Gulf of Mexico somewhat like the Chunnel. I too, see alot of felons (and alleged felons) recently and have had several defendant's arrested in the sunshine state.

Better yet - have a defendant representing himself on appeal that complains of the denial of a speedy trial when he filed a motion to dismiss ct apptd atty and hired his own atty. I guess he thought he did not have to give his new atty time to prepare.

That reminds me: I forgot to mention that this defendant I mentioned before filed a federal suit against me and the DA and the sheriff and all of her prior attorneys, part of which argued that I and the others had actually conspired to delay her case. She stated in her suit that we had filed a frivolous case against her and then refused to bring it to trial in order to make sure she could not get employment due to her pending felony. She neglected to tell the federal judge that the delays were mostly due to her string of attorneys each needing time to get up to speed on the case.

I like the idea of telling the defendant to accept the attorney or go it alone, but what happens when it is the attorney who is making the motion to withdraw. The defense lawyers who represent these people are delighted to get out from under representing someone who is filing frivolous grievances, I'm sure. I suppose the judge could simply tell the attorney to keep representing the guy anyway, but I fear what the courts of appeals would do on a cold record later when they see that the defense attorney is claiming a conflict and the court makes him go forward anyway.

Yeah, well the grievance is no picnic for us. Sometimes they are baseless, but when the good Judge gets more than one, he might look at you a little closer. And, if they grieve in the Appointment system, they'll grieve to the bar, and that's a real picnic also.

But, then, there was the defendant who tried to get rid of his court appointed counsel, and which counsel was so apparantly deficient that the Appeals court won't even relase their opinion yet, and it has been a year, and the court made him go to trial with the appointed counsel (who openly told his client "don't tell me that your innocent because I won't believe it for a second". Yeah, you guessed it, he was found guilty, not only by the court appointed counsel.

I can see it being a useful tool, but you all sound like you have a nightmare.