NCJ Number
112485
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 136 Issue: 6 Dated: (June 1988) Pages: 1957-1963
Date Published
1988
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Two recent cases suggest that the right to counsel cannot be used to shield tainted assets, such as those from organized crime activities, from forfeiture.
Abstract
In United States vs. Harvey, the court held that there is no sixth amendment right to use potentially forfeit assets to pay ones' attorney; while in Monsanto, the court allowed that payment of attorney's fees could be made at Criminal Justice Act rates from restrained assets. These decisions raise economic conflicts for attorneys that may threaten the relationship with the client. To deal with this problem, lawyers must adopt clear and unassailable standards and make these standards known to the client. Lawyers should explain that they will protect the client's interests zealously, but within the confines of the law. Client's should be told what types of communications the attorney will hold as confidential, what limits the law places on the attorney, what information cannot be held confidential, and how the attorney will respond if subpoenaed. Clients should be told that the amount of the fee, the method of payment, and possibly discussions about the fee can be disclosed. Clients also should be assured that the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications with regard to past charges will be maintained and that such information will not be disclosed for any reason. 22 footnotes.