CONFLICT IN FLAT FEE RETAINER KILLS CLIENT
CONFLICT FOR FLAT FEE CONTRACT?
As you read this summary, keep in mind that the Cal. Supremes affirmed this death verdict; they vote to KILL this guy, in spite of what you are about to read.
This private lawyer sought total fees of $80,000 for himself and various experts, $60,000 of that for the experts. Granted. The deal was that whatever the lawyer didn't spend on experts, he could keep. Remarkably, the lawyer spent $9,000 on the experts, so he got to keep $71,000. He did that by, well, not using many experts. See any conflict of interest here?
Well, two justices (Kennard and Werdegar) do. But five don't. The majority reinvents the
standard of prejudice, but even under that standard this is an obvious conflict. Nope, says the majority, we just don't see anything the lawyer did that prejudiced the defendant. Really? How about not getting the experts he needed to save this guy's life? Oh, and note the
footnote (in the dissent) about defense counsel's "huge gambling debts," causing him to borrow money he never intended to repay, and resulting in a State Bar suspension in 2001 and his resignation from the State Bar in 2004.
Now if the court had affirmed a sentence of a $100 fine, it would still be wrong. But they vote to KILL this guy when his lawyer had gambling debts that he paid off by not getting experts so he could pocket the money, resulting in no investigation and no penalty phase
social study report. That, my friends, is an outrage.
People v. Doolin; 2009 DJ DAR 101; DJ, 1/6/09; Cal. Supremes
