ccmulligan

Chris Parnell would make a good Cyril.

This is a common misconception. Lawyers actually possess no soul to sell to the Devil, making any such contract illusory under the UCC.

Our soul withers and dies somewhere in the second year of law school, and by the end of our third year even vestigial remnants are gone, devoured by the black hunger that now dwells within our core, waiting for the conjunction of all stars to emerge and lead the world into a new definition of terror and horror.

Nah, that's just regular old pretension.

Hi, speaking as another attorney who tries not to take cases on flat fees...

Do you find that the time you save in simplifying billing by using a flat-fee structure justifies the potential liabilities, including having to return a flat fee you have in your contract as "earned" because a client, filing a grievance, has alleged you did not do anything to actually earn your flat fee, or the situation where you took a case for a low fee thinking it would be simple enough only to have it balloon into massive litigation for which you are not contractually forbidden from taking on a larger fee?

Texas criminal defense lawyer, former DA here.

While I respect what the Act is trying to do, I think it fails in that regard and doesn't address what the problem here was, which is that Ken Anderson is an unethical person who does not deserve to be a member of the Bar of the State of Texas.

A DA or ADA who is committed to violating her Brady duty will violate Art. 39.14 just as easily. While the Act does assist in obtaining "open-file" like discovery for every county in Texas, a very very small minority of counties had closed-file discovery policies.

And even then, I never rely on an open-file policy for discovery. I always file motions and conduct my own investigation into my client's cases, because that's what the Bar and the Supreme Court require for effective assistance of counsel.

All the Act appears to have done is to make more paperwork for me to go through with my client before she takes a plea bargain. I don't feel like it has done anything to improve the quality of discovery or curb any malfeasance by prosecutors.

That said, as a former prosecutor, I also realize the rationale for not holding individual prosecutors personally liable for professional mistakes, the same as I support the right of criminal defense attorneys to make mistakes in good faith. Bad faith, on the other hand, is different, but I am not sure if a bad faith waiver of immunity from suit for prosecutors will of necessity make prosecutors more honest or simply make criminal prosecutions rarer. I think we can take good lessons from how Arizona v. Youngblood has affected spoliation of evidence by police departments, but the Brady inquiry is so radically different because prosecutors can be charged for the malfeasance of any state actor, including defendants.

A prosecutor who deliberately suppresses evidence, however, should face disbarment at the very least, the same as a defense attorney who knowingly lies to the Court. The adversarial system only works when all parties come to the table fairly and honestly, but I'm not sure criminal prosecutions or civil liability for attorneys engaged in that system is wise. I think it could have a chilling effect on zealous advocacy.