Substitution of defense attorneys “a travesty of justice”

This seems to have been a novel, if misguided attempt on the part of a trial judge to save the Georgia legal aid system some money, and move a somewhat slow moving criminal case to trial expeditiously.

The issue involves a two year old murder case that has not yet been tried.  The accused’s original defence counsel had sought an adjournment on the basis that the Georgia legal aid system could not pay their $95 per hour fees and the anticipated expert fees at trial.

The prosecutor suggested that rather than have two private attorneys represent this accused, the judge could order their substitution with two public defenders salaried by the state.  The judge agreed.

The new lawyers moved to be relieved of their new assignment, on the ground that forcing this new file on them puts them in the position of defending the accused at the expense of their existing clients, since their current workload is excessive already.

In addition, the considerable work that the original attorneys had put into the case would be lost.

Also of concern would be outside counsel’s willingness to properly defend future clients if they must be concerned that a judge will substitute them at some later date.

What also appears to be at stake in this case is when a client’s choice of lawyer be overruled, and at whose instance.  It is well established that a client’s choice of counsel should be overruled only in the clearest cases.

In this case, the judge made the substitution at the prosecutors’ suggestion.  If a prosecutor can successful move for the removal of a defendant’s counsel because another one would be cheaper, the potential for abuse and distrust for the legal system should not be overstated.

One can only hope this unfortunate decision will be reversed on appeal.